
Book . U S* 



PRESENTl-n ItY 




THE OFFICE OF AN ENGLISH BISHOP 

IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 
FOURTEENTH CENTURY 



A Thesis presented to the Faculty of Philosophy of the 
University of Pennsylvania 



BY 



EDITH KATHERINE LYLE 
1\ 



In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the 
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

1903 




u 



Gift 

The University 

^ As: '05 






>"? 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



rgfn^ , CHAPTER I. 

\ PAGE. 

Provision for Cure of Souls. 

Introduction ------ 1 

Diocesan Organization . - _ _ 4 

Coercive Power of the Bishop - - - 9 

Institution __-_-- 11 

Qualification of Candidates - - _ 12 

Exchanges ------ 15 

Papal Provisions ----- 15 

Induction ..---- 17 

Election of Deans and Priors - _ - 19 

Non-residence ------ 20 

Coadjutors ------ 25' 

CHAPTER II. 

Diocesan Supervision. 

Supervision of Property 

Cathedrals ------ 24 

Appropriations ----- 26 

General Mandates ----- 27 

Monasteries ------ 29 

Supervision of Conduct 

Laity - - - -- - - 31 

Clergy ------ 32 

Visitation 

Amount - - - - - - 33 

Procurations ----- 37 

Method 38 

Archdeacon's Visitation - - - - 41 

Visitation of Cathedrals and Monasteries - 43 

CHAPTER III. 

Collection of Revenue. 

Peter's Pence ----- -^ 49 

First Fruits ------ 50 



Papal Tenths ------ 51 

Procurations of Legates _ _ _ . 54 

Royal Tenths ------ 56 

Synodals -_-___ 59 

Pentecostals - - - - - - 60 

Special Diocesan Taxes . _ . - 61 

CHAPTER IV. 

Judicial and Legislative Work. 

Statutes ...-.- 63 

Synod ------- 64 

Convocation ------ 65 

Organization of the Ecclesiastical Courts 

Forum Internum ----- 66 

Organization of the Consistory . - . 70 

The Official - - - "^ - - - 71 

Advocates and Proctors - - - - 72 

Other Officers - - - - - . 75 

Judges ad hoc ------ 77 

Bishops as Judges ----- 79 

Archdeacon's Court _ . . - 81 

Exempt Jurisdictions - _ - - 83 

Competence of the Ecclesiastical Courts 

Suits Concerning Church Property and Payments 86 

Matrimonial and Testamentary Suits - - 87 

Assault, Violation of Sanctuary, etcetera - 89 

Felony - - - "^ - - . - 92 

Debt - - 93 

CHAPTER V. 

Procedure in the Ecclesiastical Courts. 

Law Administered ----- 96 

Civil Procedure - - - ' - - 97 

Purgation ------ 98 

Inquisition ------ 103 

Punishments 

Penance ----- - 103 

Deprivation ------ 106 

Indulgences ------ 107 



Appeal 

Extra-Judicial - _ . . _ no 

Judicial - - - - - - 111 

Archiepiscopal Encroachment . . . 113 

CHAPTER VI. 

Powers Pertaining to the Episcopal Order. 

Assistants ------ 1x6 

Confirming ------ 1x7 

Ordaining ------ \iq 

Dedicating and Consecrating . - - 12I 

Reconciling ------ 125 

Conclusion - - - - - - 127 

Bibliography ------ 129 



CHAPTER I. 
PROVISION FOR CURE OF SOULS, 



The English mediaeval bishops entered into the life 
of their time in a greater number of waj's than did any 
other class of men. To give with completeness the bio- 
graphy of any one of them would bring into the account 
not only all the ecclesiastical relations which concerned 
the bishopric, involving the papacy at one end of the 
scale and the humblest inhabitant of the diocese at the 
other, but also all the activity, judicial, economic, and 
political of a feudal lord, and in very many cases the 
work of a royal official or statesman. This study will 
consider only the diocesan work of the bishop, but much 
regarding his manner of performing it is explained by 
the fact that he had other and important interests. It 
is a modern, not a mediaeval point of view, which re- 
gards the bishop chiefly as an ecclesiastic. To all duties 
connected with his office the mediaeval bishop gave his 
attention, but' where he chose to place the emphasis de- 
pended upon his personal taste and upon his previous 
career. 

There were bishops in England at all times during the 
Middle Ages, of whom Grandisson of Exeter may be 
taken as an example, who were by inclination interested 
almost wholly in .ecclesiastical matters and owed their 
promotion to the ability they had previously displayed 
as prior, canon, or in some other church office. Excused 
from attending parliament whenever possible, they de- 
sired no part in the strife of parties and political life of 



the country, but devoted their energy to perfecting the 
organization and advancing the power of the church. 
On the other hand, there were bishops in England at all 
times during the Middle Ages who were first and fore- 
most statesmen or crown officials, owing their promotion 
to the services they had rendered their king, and by 
whom a bishopric was looked upon as an estate. Inas- 
much as the king could most easily pay his servants by 
having ecclesiastical preferment conferred upon them, 
men came into possession of church livings who never 
resided upon them or felt any interest in the spiritual 
offices attached to them. Bishop Sandale, for instance, 
who had been for a number of years in the service of 
the state, held, when elevated to the see of Winchester 
in 1316, two cathedral dignities, eight prebendal stalls 
and ten rectories, and had been in minor orders until 
within four years of that time.' 

Between these two extremes, dividing their time be- 
tween their diocese and their king, were to be found the 
majority of the English bishops of the first half of the 
fourteenth century. Bishop Grosseteste (1235-1253) 
had protested vigorously against ecclesiastics occupying 
themselves with temporal affairs,^ but his voice was 
not heeded for his attitude was contrary to the accepted 
ideas of his time. The king still depended upon the 
clergy in large part for his trained officials. A lay chan- 
cellor was appointed for the first time in 1340, but after 
five years' trial, the king went back to ecclesiastics. 
While they were not necessarily bishops, still, for fifty 
years between 1300 and 1370 the Great Seal was held by 
a bishop.^ Bishop Stapeldon of Exeter was a conscien- 

^Sandale's Beg., p. XXXII; Pajml Letters, 11.27. 

^ Grosseteste 's Letters, 205. 

^Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, 1.157-228. 



tions and efficient ruler of his diocese and at the same 
time devoted himself so thoroughly to the interests of 
Edward II. that in 1326 he lost his life at the hands of a 
London mob. 

His powers and duties as a feudal lord no bishop could 
escape if he would. The bishopric of Winchester pos- 
sessed over fifty manors, Exeter had twenty-four, Wor- 
cester twenty- two, and every bishopric possessed a 
considerable number. These the bishop was compelled 
to keep from depreciating in value, for at his death 
juries examined into their condition and the executors of 
his will were compelled to pay the incoming bishop for 
all dilapidations.' He managed his manors and man- 
orial courts through bailiffs and stewards like any tem- 
poral lord, but he himself journeyed from one to another 
and personall}' examined into their condition. On most 
of them the halls were kept ready to receive him and the 
numerous retinue that traveled with him. This, quite 
as much as his spiritual duties, compelled him to lead 
the itinerant life which was so conspicuous a character- 
istic of the mediaeval bishop. Unless prevented by sick- 
ness or old age, he was constanth' moving about. Bishop 
Stapeldon's register, for example, gives an annual aver- 
age of about fifty places at which documents were signed 
between the years 1308 and 1323. 

The authority possessed by a bishop wherewith to 
carry on his ecclesiastical work w^as derived from two 
sources, and the distinction between them was sharply 
drawn hy the Church. Certain powers belonged to him 
as a member of the episcopal order, but the greater 
number belonged to him as ruler of a definite ecclesias- 
tical area, the diocese. The mediaeval church has often 

^ These amounts were sometimes very large. Bishop Wyke- 
ham's executors paid £2903. Sandale's Beg., 630. 



been likened to a state and the comparison is, in a sense, 
as applicable to the governmental unit, the bishopric, as 
to the church as a whole. In every diocese, for very 
many purposes, a large number of people and a large 
amount of property, and for some purposes all the peo- 
ple and all the property were subject to a body of law, 
a judicial procedure and a system of taxation operated 
independently of the civil power and under the control 
of the bishop. He "administered whole sides of life 
which have since been put into the hands of the secular 
government, or left to the discretion of the individual." 
In a real sense he was governor, judge, and lawgiver, 
and it will be conducive to clearness to discuss separ- 
ately the duties he was called upon to perform in each 
capacity. 

Diocesan Orgfanization. — As it was not uncommon 
for mediaeval bishops to live for a considerable part of 
the year outside their dioceses, much of the administra- 
tive work was necessarily carried on by assistants of 
some kind. In part, such officials were supplied by the 
ecclesiastical organization, in part, created by the bishop 
at his own pleasure. 

First, in point of dignity, came the cathedral chapter. 
The essential characteristic which made it a chapter has 
been stated to be its office as council for the bishop." In 
such case, by the fourteenth century the original justifi- 
cation for its existence had in large measure disappeared. 
There is little indication that the bishop consulted it, as 
a chapter, except when his acts would not otherwise be 
legal. ^ Two causes contributed to such a result. In the 
first place, non-residence had by that time become so 

1 Benson, The Cathedral, 52-55. 

2 c. 8, 9, X. III. X. He could not alienate church property 
without their consent, see post p. 26. 



general among the canons that the old chapter life had 
largely passed awa3^ Chapters seldom met, even for 
their own affairs. The majority of the canons were ab- 
sorbed in their own business and concerned themselves 
little with the common interests of the church." Again, 
chapter and bishop regarded each other with jealousy. 
In many cases long standing disputes concerning rights 
of jurisdiction helped to cause the strained relations be- 
tween them. The lack of cooperation was particularly 
marked where the canons were regulars. "It was nat- 
ural and customary," according to William de Dene, 
for the monks of Rochester to annoy and slander their 
well deserving bishops, who were always compelled to 
have a staff ready to defend themselves against the 
monks." ^ 

The most important administrative official of the 
bishop was the archdeacon, called in the Decretals ociilus 
episcopi.^ Every bishopric was divided into archdeacon- 
ries, varying in number according to its size, so that any 
archdeacon exercised authority only over a certain, well 
defined section of a diocese. He was appointed by the 
bishop, but was inducted into office as if into a benefice 
and accordingly could appeal to the archbishop if re- 
moved for insufficient reasons, just as a rector could 
appeal when deprived of his benefice.^ Appointed, orig- 
inally, as a mere assistant, he gradually came to have an 
independent position and looked upon his customary 

1 Capes, English Church, 242, 243. 

^ Hist. Roffensis in Wharton, Anglia Sacra, I. 370. 

^c, 7, X. I. XXIII. 

^ Beg. Pal. Dun., 156, 3U3; Drokensford's Reg., 25. "Ainsi 
I'archidiacre est un vicaire que 1' eveque nomme mais qu'il 
ne peut revoquer." (Fournier, ies officialites, p. xxx.) 



duties as rights which the bishop could not take awa3^^ 
In this way, in some places, particularly in France, he 
gradually encroached upon the bishop's powers until he 
seriously curtailed his jurisdiction, rivalling and even 
surpassing him in power and authority/ In England, 
the archdeacons of Richmond and Chester possessed all 
the jurisdictional rights of a bishop and governed their 
archdeaconries without interference except to be visited 
temporil)us opportunis .^ With these two exceptions, the 
English archdeacons seem to have occupied a subordinate 
position. There is an instance in Bishop Grandisson's 
reigster of an archdeacon refusing to execute his mandate, 
and the summary manner in which he was brought to 
terms indicates fairly well the relative positions of the 
two in that diocese. The archdeacon of Exeter, Deum 
non liahens pre oculis, assumed that defiant attitude, 
but Grandisson straightway excommunicated him for 
breaking his oath of obedience, and sequestered all the 
revenues of the archdeaconry, at the same time citing 
him to appear before him to answer for his contumacy. 
Ten days later the archdeacon received absolution in 
omnibus humiliter et reverenter se subwdttentum .^ Founded 
entirely upon custom, not only were the archdeacon's 
duties different in every diocese, but thej- varied in the 

1 The best general account of the archdeacon is by M. Adrien 
Grea, "Essai historique sur les archidiacres" in Bibliotheque 
de V Ecole des Chartes (1851) pp. 39-67, 215-247. 

The archdeacon of Wells appealed to the archbishop because 
he was not allowed to collect Peter's Pence "although from 
olden time it pertained to the official of the archdeacon of Wells 
to collect the pence of the Blessed Peter." Shrewsbury's Beg.y 
310. 

2 Grea, Essai, 216-230. 

s Raine, Historians of York, III. 248-250; Dansey, Bural 
Deans, I. 120, 121. 
* Grandisson's Beg. , 488, 492. 



archdeaconries of the same diocese; the archdeacon of 
Worcester, for example, possessing" some rights not held 
by the archdeacon of Gloncester." The general nature 
of their work ivill appear in the course of the discussion. 
A rural dean, elected annually by the clergy,^ or ap- 
pointed by the bishop or archdeacon,^ was at the head 
of each of the subdivisions of the archdeaconry, the rural 
deaneries. By the fourteenth century they had so far 
lost their old powers to the archdeacons "^ that they pos- 
sessed little independent action. They saw to the pub- 
lication throughout the deanery of the bishop's mandates, 
and made inquiries for him into the local reputation of 
persons, or the condition of property under their juris- 
diction.^ They possessed seals of office and certified to 
letters of administration, the appointment of proctors, 
the reports of commissioners and other official acts done 
in the deanery.^ The chapters of the clergy in each rural 
deanery, held every three weeks" or once a month, ^ and 
by the fourteenth centurj^ generally presided over by the 
archdeacon,^ were regularly' used by the bishops to con- 

1 See i^ost p. 17. 

2 As at Wells (Drokensford's JReg., 286) and at Exeter (Gran- 
disson's Beg., 713). 

^ As at Winchester (Wilkins, ConcMia. II. 299) and at Lich- 
field (Norbury's Beg., 262). 

* There were a few exceptions. The dean of Norwich resem- 
bled an archdeacon more than an ordinary dean. Hudson, 
Leet Jurisd. in Norwich. Seldon Soc. PuhJications, Y . p. XCI. 

5 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 299. 

^ Ibid. II. 678; Grandisson's Beg., 713. Grandisson complained 
that they handed over their seals to subordinates who falsified 
documents and took other unwarranted liberties. 

7 Wilkins, Concilia, II . 678. 

8 At Exeter (Wilkins, Concilia, II. 148); and Winchester, 
(Ihid. 299.) 

9 Ibid. II. U8, 299, 678. 



duct investigations," and by the archdeacons in carrying 
on their ordinary administrative work. 

The cathedral chapter, archdeacon and rural dean oc- 
cupied a definite place in the organization of the church, 
but a large part of the bishop's work was done through 
commissioners appointed to take charge of specific mat- 
ters as they arose. The commissions were revokable 
at will and frequently one was cancelled and another issued 
to other persons to deal with the same question. In 
fact, as the chapter was not to be depended upon and 
the archdeacon's time was nearly filled with customary 
tasks, the bishop was forced to rely upon commissioners 
in delegating his own work. At the same time, the ease 
with which he could recall matters to his own considera- 
tion and the thoroughly dependent position of the com- 
missioners made the practice attractive to him. While, 
as has been said, the bishop depended little for assist- 
ance upon the chapter, as a chapter, he constantly util- 
ized the services of the dean and of individual canons as 
commissioners. Six commissions of an administrative 
character issued by Bishop Drokensford during the year 
1322 are recorded in his register, and canons acted on 
five of them.^ The bishop's official, while primarily a 
judicial officer, very often served as commissioner in 
administrative matters.^ 

If the bishop was absent from his diocese for any con- 
siderable length of time, he appointed one or more 
vicars- general to act in his stead. By a general commis- 
sion issued to him, the vicar-general could perform all the 
jurisdictional w^ork of the bishop except confer bene- 
fices; for that, especial mention of such power in the 

^ Drokensford's Heg.^ 8, 77. 

2 Drokensford's Beg. , 202, 203, 205, 207 

3 Beg. Pal. Dun., 758; Sandale's Beg., 60, 102. 



9 

letter of appointment was necessaiy.' The amount of 
authority the bishop chose to confer varied in different 
cases. Thus Bishop Grandisson, in appointing a vicar- 
general in 1331, empowered him to confer benefices, but 
not to authorize exchanges.^ Bishop Kellawe (1312), 
granted power to his vicars-general to dispose of bene- 
fices, except such as were in his own patronage.^ 

Before describing the various episcopal functions, it is 
worth while to consider for a moment what powers were 
at the bishop's disposal, whereb}' he could compel submis- 
sion to his mandates. Means of coercion he must have 
had, for he exercised true governmental powers and the 
secular arm was not often called to his assistance, al- 
though, of course the knowledge that it could be had a 
deterring influence. His authority, like that of the 
whole mediaeval church, depended partly upon religious 
feeling, partly upon force. His means of commanding 
obedience from all persons was excommunication and in- 
terdict, backed up in the last resort by the civil power; 
from the clergy the additional powers of sequestering 
their revenues and depriving them of office. Any neg- 
lect to comply with a bishop's mandate meant excommu- 
nication. If the offender persisted in his refusal, he 
was solemnly excommunicated with bell, book and 
candle, and in case of a beneficed clerk his revenues 
sequestered as well. After forty days, if he did not 
seek absolution but remained contumacious, the king 
could be requested to order the sheriff to seize and 
imprison him. The king might refuse to issue such a 
writ, but there is no indication that it was done to any 
extent: It was probably only a form that was regularly 

1 c. 2, in 6, I. xiii: Lyndwood, Provinciale, 105. 

2 Grandisson 's Beq., 635. 
^ Beg. Pal Dun., 280. 



10 

gone through with as a matter of course.' In 1350 the 
commons petitioned that the king's writ should not be 
issued at the bishop's request until a scii^e facias had 
been directed to cause the party to answer; that is, the 
king was to inquire as to the justice of the excommuni- 
cation before he enforced it. But the king replied that 
the petition was contrary to the law of the land and of 
the church, and could not be granted.^ 

However, excommunication was usually sufficient. 
Entries of appeals for the king's aid occur in the 
bishops' registers, but the number is insignificant.^ 
The bishop's authoritj^ might rashly be defied, but less 
than forty days of separation from all the faithful and 
the church which touched his life at every point was 
enough to bring the rebellious one to a compliant frame 
of mind. The craving for uniformity, and dread of 
isolation so characteristic of the Middle Ages was 
strong enough, even at this period, to undermine the 
courage of him who would stand out against the church.'^ 
It follows that excommunication had less force when 

^ See Stubbs, Ecc. Courts Commission Beport, Appendix I, p. 
28. 

2 Bot. Pari. II. 230 a. 

^ These requests could be made only by the bishop, conse- 
quently most of them ought to appear in the registers. During 
the first three years of Grandisson's episcopate, the years when 
his register is most complete, five requests for the help of the 
civil power are recorded. Kellawe of Durham, being a pala- 
tine bishop, was not compelled to call on the king, but himself 
directed his sheriff to imprison the offenders. Nine such man- 
dates are found in his registers, covering a period of five years, 
Similarly, but three are recorded for Sandale's episcopate. 
(Grandisson's Beg., 359, 514, 595,596, 598: Beg., Pal., Dun., 165^ 
262, 303, 313, 317, 372, 451, 486, 589; Sandale's Beg., 86, 87, 102. 

* For discussion of this characteristic in another connection, 
see Cheyney, "Recantations of the Early Lollards'' in Am. 
Hist. Bev. IV. 423-438. 



11 

launched against those in high places where that feeling 
was weaker, and also when a group of men, as a village, 
was contumacious, for there again the force of isolation 
did not operate strongly. Moreover, the material dis- 
advantages were to be considered. When Bishop Gif- 
fard of Worcester excommunicated the monks of Mal- 
vern Priory, no tithes were paid to them and the king, 
stating that they were prevented from obtaining nour- 
ishment for their bodies, interfered in their behalf.^ 
They were powerful enough to get help from the king, 
but less influential persons could be starved into sub- 
mission. Doubtless many ecclesiastical mandates re- 
mained unexecuted, as did many secular ones, but the 
strong impression made by the picturesque cases of re- 
sistance to authority several times repeated in the Eng- 
lish chronicles is apt to give an idea of a state of anarchy 
in the church out of all proportion to the truth. 

Admission to Benefices. — A primary duty of the 
bishop was to fill the benefices and other livings of 
the church with suitable clergy. Admissions to bene- 
fices are the most numerous documents found in the 
registers. No prebend, rectory, vicarage, chapel, or even 
hermitage could be held without the bishop's sanction. 

Certain livings were in his own gift, to these he ap- 
pointed by granting a letter of collation.^ The great 
majority were in the hands of some patron, lay or 
ecclesiastical, and the procedure then was as follows. 
The patron presented a candidate to the bishop, who 
thereupon, issued a commission to the archdeacon Ho 

iGiffard'si^eg., 211. 

""Beg. Pal. Dun., 833; Drokensford's Beg., 116. 

^ These inquiries Ihad formerly been made by the rural deans, 
but they were now regularly entrusted to the archdeacons: 
Beg. Pal. Dun., 158, 439, 597; Drokensford's Beg., 8, 77; Shrews- 
bury's Beg., 1Q5, 259; Grandisson'si?e^., 675; Sandale's Beg., 265. 



12 

inquire in the full local chapter of the deanery in which 
the vacancy lay, or at times non expedato loci capitulo 
from the neighboring rectors, vicars and chaplains 
upon oath,' when the vacancy occurred and for what 
cause, who last presented to it, and who was then in 
possession of the presentation, how much it was worth 
a year, if there were any pensions attached to it, if it 
was under litigation (and if so, between whom and on 
what ground) ; concerning the qualifications of the pre- 
sentee, his age, if he was suitable, what orders he was 
in, if he held other benefices, (one or more, with cure 
or without) and the other questions asked in such cases." 
The bishop then either examined the report himself, 
and if satisfactory granted a letter of institution, or 
handed it over to one or more commissioners for that 
purpose, authorizing them to institute if they thought 
proper.^ 

It is difficult to say how often institution was refused 
because the candidate was incompetent. A record of 
such cases would naturally not be made in the registers. 
Nevertheless, from the number admitted when in minor 
orders and allowed leave of absence to study, we cannot 
help concluding that the questions as to the qualifica- 
tions of the candidate were largely a matter of form. 
Patrons desired to put their sons or friends in posses- 
sion of a benefice and bishops seem to have been power- 
€rless to resist the pressure brought to bear upon them. 
From the patron's point of view, itAvas a piece of prop- 
erty, and if the person he desired to enjoy it was not 
■capable of performing the spiritual duties attached to it, 
let a chaplain be provided for that purpose. The Coun- 
■cil of Lyons (1274) decreed that no one under twenty- 

1 Beg. Pal. Dun., 158, 597. 

^ Ihid. 158; Drokensford's Beg., 8. 

^ Beg. Pal. Pun.^ 283, et passim in all the registers. 



13 

five should be instituted to a parish church, or who was 
without priest's orders, unless he pledged himself to 
take them within a year, under penalty of forfeiting his 
benefice/ But when, for example, Bishop Giffard, in 
accordance with that decree, attempted to deprive Ed- 
mund Mortimer, a member of the powerful Mortimer 
family, of the church of Campden for not taking 
priest's orders, the latter refused to give it up. The 
bishop appealed to the archbishop, but he was reluctant 
to act. Meanwhile, the rector appealed to Rome and 
the judges delegated to hear the cause decided in his 
favor and condemned the bishop to pay a hundred marks 
for costs.^ 

If unfit persons could not be kept out of beneficies, 
the next best thing was to give them an opportunity to 
become qualified after they had obtained possession. Ac- 
cordingly, Pope Boniface VIII. allowed bishops to dis- 
pense with the Lyons decree and permit clerks to be ad- 
mitted and given seven years to study before they were 
required to take priest's orders, although they were ex- 
pected to become subdeacons within a year.^ Hence 
clerks in first tonsure and acolytes, mere boys still in the 
hands of their tutors, were given benefices.'* Bishops 

^ c. 12, in 6, 1. VI. 

^Giffard's Beg., 116, 187, 114. Giffard had two years pre- 
viously (1279) written to the Pope pointing out the unsuitable- 
ness of a strict application of the Lyons decree to the English 
church. 

3 c. 31, in 6. I. VI. 

^ Drokensford's Beg., 20, 37, 61, 147; Grandisson's Beg., 591, 595; 
Stapeldon's Beg., 156, 160; Shrewsbury's Beg., 37, 45, 95. A 
certain William Wichot, instituted to a rectory by bishop 
Wykeham and granted four years leave of absence, took his 
oath "that he would regularly attend a grammar school at the 
hours of reading and study and use all diligence in acquiring 
enough grammar for his station and as much plain song as 



14 

sometimes went further and admitted, laj-men. The arch- 
bishop ordered Drokensford to cancel his collation to a 
cathedral prebend of a puer laicus, the son of a nobleman/ 
The amount of laxity varied greatly under different bish- 
ops. Grosseteste's effort to maintain some standard of 
education for admission to the churches under his charge 
is well known, and his refusal to institute a boy who was 
still reading his Ovid is often referred to/ In another 
instance he refused to admit a clerk presented by the 
chancellor of York, and sent the chancellor the boy's ex- 
amination papers so that he could judge for himself of 
his incompetency/ Bishop Drokensford sometimes ex- 
amined the presentee in literature before instituting him,"* 
but it does not appear that examinations were at all 
eommon with bishops generally, or even with Bishop 
Drokensford. A considerable number of the institutions 
of persons under age were due to the pope, the candi- 
dates having obtained a papal dispensation.^ 

In case the patron did not present within six months 
after a living fell vacant, the bishop collated to it by 
lapse. ^ On the other hand, if the bishop did not insti- 
tute the patron's candidate within two months, or give 
sufficient reason for not doing so, the latter appealed to 
the archbishop, and the bishop was cited to appear be- 
fore the of&cial of the Court of Canterbury.' 

possible, to the intent that during the interval he might be- 
come sufficiently instructed in gTammar and plain song." 
AYykehamsi?€(7., I. 116. 

^ Drokensford's Beg., 41, 49. 

^ Grosseteste's Letters, 63. 

3i5/c?.,68. 

* Drokensford's Beg., 77. 103. 

^ Papal Letters, II:"60, 69, 100. 

^ The cannon law allowed six months to a clerical, but only 
four to a lay patron (c. 1, in 6, iii.xix); but the royal courts 
in deciding cases of advowson uniformly allowed six months to 
each. See Maitland, Canon Law in Church of England, 76-78. 

"^ Lvndwood. Provinciale, 38. There are nine such appeals in 
Shrewsbury's/Re.g., 147, 178, 322, 442, 463, 523, 747. 



15 

A surprisiuofly large number of the institntions were the 
result of exchanges of benefices between clerks, one-fifth 
of Grandisson's institutions during the first ten years of 
his episcopate being due to that cause/ In 1355 he is- 
sued a manda te which shows the influence exerted by 
powerful laymen in such cases. Comment has often been 
made upon the extent to which the church entered into 
all details of mediaeval life; much might also be said re- 
garding the influence of laymen upon all details in the 
government of the mediaeval church. The mandate pro- 
hibited those holding benefices from presenting to him 
any letters of noblemen asking him to grant them license 
to exchange, as in such case he could not refuse without 
offending the noblemen.^ 

In the fourteenth century, the regular method of filling 
church offices was greatly interfered with by papal 
provisions. Pope John XXII (1316-1334) provided to 
twelve benefices and twenty-one canonries in the dio- 
cese of Exeter and to five benefices and forty- seven 
canonries in the diocese of Bath and Wells. ^ In 1326, 
the Bishop of Salisbury ' ' wrote an humble letter to 
the pope signifying that, although there were in all 
in the Church of Sarum forty-one prebends, four 
dignities, four archdeaconries, and the subdeanery 
to which he had the original right of collation, there 
were nevertheless at that time a dean, an archdeacon, 
and six prebendaries who had been appointed by the late 

1 Heg. of institutions: Of the 4-16 institutions, 85 are men- 
tioned as exchanges. 

2 Grandisson's Beg., 1171. Exchanges were more frequent in 
the latter part of the century, thirty per cent of Wykeham's 
institutions between 1367 and 1377 being occasioned by them. 
Archbishop Courtney (1392) circulated through the province a 
denunciation of dioppe churches, a class of clerics, living mostly 
in London, who carried on a traffic in exchanging benefices for 
their own advantage. Wykeham's Beg., II. 431. 

^ Papal Letters, II. passim. 



16 

pope; and further, that the precentor, treasurer, one 
archdeacon, and seventeen prebendaries held their offices 
by provision of the present pope; that hardly more than 
three out of the whole number even resided in Sarum ; 
and finally, that there were no less than eight who were 
waiting for vacancies, having been appointed as canons, 
with the right of succeeding to prebends as they became 
void." ' The bishop might be accosted on the highway 
as he journej^ed from place to place by clerks armed with 
provisions who pressed their claims for immediate atten- 
tion.^ It was not unusual for those promoted from one 
benefice to another to resign the first on condition that 
they did not find the second had been filled by the pope.^ 
The climax was reached when Clement VI. began his 
pontificate by offering to provide benefices for all poor 
clerks who would come to Avignon within two months 
of his coronation."* Bishop Grandisson and Bishop de 
Bury addressed him on the subject. Both letters were 
probably written in the fall of 1342 and were very 
similar in tone. They did not question the right of the 
pope to grant unlimited provisions, but described the 
injury which the large number issued worked in their 
dioceses, Grandisson pointing out that the worthy re- 
mained at home while the ambitious went to Rome to 
seek a provision.^ Although provisions were confined 
almost entirely to livings of ecclesiastical patrons, the 
determined opposition to them came from the laymen, 
and in 1351 the Statute of Pro visors was passed. So 

^ Jones, Salishury, 119, 120. 

2 Swinfield's Boll, p. CCiv. 

3 Drokensford's Beg.,14:4:, 267, 299. 
^ Papal Letters, II p. vi. 

^ Grandisson's Beg., 110; Raine, Letters from Northern Begis- 
ters, 380. 



17 

far as the evidence in the registers goes, bishops did 
not refuse to carry out the papal provisions. Before 
executing a provision the bishop caused inquiry to be 
made as to the "life, manners, and conversation" 
of the clerk presenting it. If he thought it had been ob- 
tained through misrepresentation, he stayed its execution 
until the pope had been consulted." 

Collation or institution conferred upon a candidate the 
administration of the spiritualities. The right to the 
temporalities of his living passed to him only after the 
ceremony of induction, in which he was conducted, in 
person or by proctor, into the church or cathedral stall. 
In the case of benefices, the bishop commonly issued his 
mandate to the archdeacon to induct.^ The deans usually 
installed the canons of the cathedral.' Once inducted, 
the incumbent held by life tenure, and if removed by the 
bishop for insufficient cause, could appeal to the arch- 
bishop.^ 

In those turbulent times, induction was sometimes at- 

1 Grandisson's Beg., 384, 394, 396; Sandale's Beg., 29, 41, 48; 
Shrewsbury's i?e^., 548, 716. 

^ Drokensford's Beg., 9; Shrewsbury' s jRe^y. , 10; Beg. Pal. Dun., 
12; Grandisson's i?e^., 615. Another instance of the growth 
of the archdeacon's power at the expense of the rural deans who 
originally inducted to benefices. When the mandates to induct 
were not addressed to the archdeacons they were addressed to 
one or more commissioners. Drokensford's Beg., 219', Beg. Pal. 
Dun., 832; Grandisson's Beg., 615. 

The archdeacon of Gloucester (1301) complained to the arch- 
bishop that Bishop Godfrey caused the rectors in that arch- 
deaconry to be inducted by his commissaries, instead ol by him- 
self . The bishop, however, insisted that he was acting accord- 
ing to precedent. In the other archdeaconry of the diocese, 
Worcester, the archdeacon inducted. Giffard's Jieg. , 551. 

3 Drokensford's Beg., 254, 266. 

^Ihid., 100. 



18 

tended with danger and difficulty, especially when there 
were two persons claiming' the same benefice. Bishop 
Grandisson instituted a certain rector to Whitechurch 
and issued a commission to the abbot of Buckland to in- 
duct him. When the abbot and his train reached the 
church, they found that by order of the abbot of Tavis- 
tock, who claimed the right of presentation, it had been 
fortified by a stone wall and a ditch and was guarded by 
a body of armed men.' Bishop Grandisson excommun- 
icated all concerned, but they remained contumacious 
and he was forced to write to the king for aid.^ 

On another occasion trouble arose over the presenta- 
tion to the church of Kilkhampton. Grandisson insti- 
tuted a certain candidate, but Theobald de Grenevile, 
claiming the advowson, got a judgment in his favor in 
the king's court, and had his nominee instituted and in- 
ducted by order of the president of the court of Canter- 
bury. Later the royal court reversed its decision, but 
the clerk in possession refused to meet the altered con- 
ditions. Assisted by Sir Theobald, he fortified the 
church velud castrum and surrounded himself with an 
armed force to resist attack.^ The bishop ordered the 
abbot of Hartland and the prior of Launceton to go to 
the church in dispute and excommunicate him. The 
abbot wrote to the bishop that as heandhis companions 
were approaching the church, they were met by a mob 
of armed men, who had painted their faces or wore masks, 
and who rushed upon them and with bows drawn drove 
them into retreat, pursuing them for a mile and pelting 
them with stones all the way. A few months later Sir 
Theobald appeared before the bishop and on bended knee 
confessed his sin and prayed for absolution. "* 

1 Grandisson's JReg., 676. 

■"Ihid., 603. 

^Ibid., 1051-1052. 

.^ Grandisson's JBe|7., 1051, 1058. 



The election of a dean, abbot, or prior was a technical 
process and the share the bishop had in it varied greatly. 
At Exeter and Wells, upon the death of a dean, the 
bishop handed over the administration of the common 
property to a commissioner or commissioners, usually 
members of the chapter/ Then his conge d^ elire had to 
be obtained before the chapter could proceed to elect a 
successor/ When the election had been held, proctors 
were appointed to give a detailed account of it to the 
bishop, or his commissary. He examined theii' state- 
ments ver}^ carefully and if he found any customar}* form 
had been omitted or improperly carried out, he qiiashed 
the election and collated to the office himself.^ Nothing 
•exceptionable being discovered, he ordered the result of 
the election to be solemnly proclaimed in the cathedi^al 
on Sundays or fast days, citing any who opposed it to 
appear before him on a certain day, and show cause for 
so doing. If no one came on the appointed day, the 
bishop received the oath of submission of the dean-elect, 
formally confirmed the election, and issued a mandate 
for installation. 



1 Grandisson's Beg., 79^801, 803, 1031-1032; Shrewsbury's 
Beg., 137, 166. The monks of Durham complained of the officials 
the bishop sent to the priory in time of vacancy. Accordingly, 
Bishop Kellawe agreed that in future the sub-prior and a 
council of monks should administer it at such times, and to 
protect his own interests he would send one clerk with three 
men and three horses. Beg. Pal. Dun., 1125. 

-According to the Lincoln customs, the chapter could pro- 
ceed to an election without having first asked their bishop for 
license. Lincoln Cath. Statutes, pt. II. 137: Quo vacante, ad capi- 
tulum pertinet Decani sui electo. Non quidem perhabito cum 
Episcopo super hoc sermone nee ipsius requisite assensu. 

^ Grandisson'si?e^., 1035. Cassation of the election of the prior 
of Plympton: non persone electi vicio vel defectu, set utpote omissa 
in suhstancialihus forma que necessario requierebatur . ■ 



20 

In the cathedral priories of Durham and Winche.ster 
the procedure was the same as at Exeter," but at Wor- 
cester, in accordance with an agreement made in 1224, 
the monks presented seven candidates and the bishop 
chose one of them/ Rochester Priory was vacant in 
1333 and the bishop called the monks together and asked 
each in turn for his choice for prior. From those nom- 
inated, having taken into consideration the qualifications 
of each, he appointed the prior. ^ 

As to the other monasteries and collegiate churches in 
a diocese, the conge d' elire was obtained from the pa- 
tron, but, except in case of monasteries exempt by papal 
privilege, the process of election was thoroughly exam- 
ined by the bishop and the person elected took an oath 
of obedience to him before he received letters of induc- 
tion.'^ Occasionally, to save time and expense, the bishop 
was asked to take the election into his own hands. ^ 

The fact that a clerk was admitted to a benefice or 
prebend is no good reason for supposing that he would 
have been found in residence upon it. In accordance 
with the legatine constitution of Cardinal Othobon, vicars 
were in some cases sworn to residence when collated or 
instituted.^ But a determined effort had to be made by 
the bishops to keep the incumbents of benefices from de- 
serting them without their leave, like the rector of Stok- 
enham who had taken up his abode Bishop Stapeldon 
knew not where, and had not been near his church for 

1 Beg. Pal. Dun., 355,356, 392; Wykehani"s Beg., 149, 194. 
-^GifEard'si^eg., 62, 325. 

3 -Hist Boffensis in Wharton, Anglia Sacra, I. 371, 372. 
* Wykeham's Beg., 1:54; Grandisson's Beg., 662, 1162. 
^ Grandisson's Beg. , 998. 

^ Beg. Pal. Dun., 123, 287. 745, 821; Grandisson's Beg., 643; 
Wilkins, Concilia, II. 12. 



21 

three years." Mandates were issued, both general and 
special. Bishop Kellawe in 1313 ordered the sequestra- 
tor- general to sequestrate the fruits of all benefices hav- 
ing cure of souls in which the rectors were not resident 
"to protect their sheep from the wolves".^ Wykeham, 
upon becoming bishop of Winchester, instructed the 
archdeacons to admonish all non-resident clergy to return 
to residence within two months.^ Again in 1383, he 
commanded them to cite before him all rectors and 
vicars non-resident without his leave. A list of those 
cited is recorded, twenty-six in the archdeaconry of Win- 
ehester and nineteen in the archdeaconry of Surrey.'^ 
Sequestration was the ordinary penalty imposed for non- 
residence,^ but deprivation had occasionally to be 
resorted to.*^ 

At the same time that bishops were issuing mandates 
to keep the clergy from wandering off and leaving their 
churches, they were granting licenses of non-residence 
in abundance. Much the greater number were given to 
young rectors to enable them to study in accordance 
with Boniface's decree.^ In Drokensford's register fif- 
teen such grants are entered for 1320, seventeen for 1321, 
nineteen for 1322 and sixteen for 1323.^ His successor 
issued nineteen during the first year of his episcopate. 
In 1329, the year in which his register is particularly full, 
-Grandisson recorded fifty- three licenses of non-residence 

1 Stapeldon's Beg., 381. 

2 Beg, Pal. Bun., 467. 

3 Wykeham'si?e.g., II. 22. 
^ Wykeham's Beg., 11. .350. 

^ Ihid., 15, 144; Grandisson's Beg., 428, 726; Bronescombe's 
i?e(7.,313, 316, 380, 381. 

« Drokensford's Beg., 95, 97, 101; Grandisson's Beg., 390, 428. 

^ See ante p. 13. 

« Drokensford's jRe.^., 304-309. 



22 

for study. They were customarily limited to one year^ 
but there was no limit to the number of times they migfht 
be renewed. In some cases they were extended six or 
seven times, covering in all, it might be, a period of 
seven' or ten years.* In his absence, the student had to 
provide a chaplain acceptable to the bishop,^ and in case 
of the more mature rectors, might be expected to return 
at Easter time and hear confessions.^ He was also very 
frequently required to make a payment for the license 
to the fabric fund of the cathedral, usually a mark or 
forty shillings.^ 

Dispensations for non-residence were granted for other 
reasons as well. Leave of absence to serve a nobleman, 
some ecclesiastic, or the king was freely given. ^ Also- 
licenses to make a pilgrimage to a saint's shrine are 
often found in the registers./ Bishop Drokensford 
allowed the rector of Overstowrey a year of non-resi- 
dence to study or stsiy among friends, because of his 
slender income.^ He granted another two years' absence 
on account of the strife going on in his parish.^ Occasion- 
ally, a bishop became disturbed at the number of licenses 
he had conferred. Bishop Drokensford, in a commission 
in which he enlarged upon the evils of non-residence, di- 
rected his official to examine into the conduct of all hold- 
ing licenses and revoke any that were being abused. '° As 

1 Stapledon's Beg.. 85. 

2 Ibid., 84. 

^ Drokensford' s Beg., 216; Wykeham's Beg., 1:116. 
^ Shrewsbury's Bfg., 99. 

^ Grandisson'si?e^., 424, 443; Drokensford's Beg., 95. 
^ Shrewsbury's Beg., 528; Grandisson's Beg., 579; Wykeham's. 
Beg.,i55, 500. 

'^ Grandisson's Beg., 467, 520. 
« Drokenford'si?e^., 306. 
^ Ibid., 219. 
'^ Ibid., 221. 



23 

in the case of other dispensations, part of the licenses 
issued by bishops were at the command of the pope. 

When the holder of a benefice became too old, or was 
otherwise rendered incompetent to discharge his work, 
the bishop responded to the need of the parish and ap- 
pointed a chaplain as coadjutor. In some instances the 
rector or vicar himself asked for the chaplain, in others, 
the bishop had to force one upon him.' The old incumb- 
ent lived on among- his parishioners, supported by a pen- 
sion paid by the coadjutor. The bishop fixed the 
amount of the pension, and freciuently had to interfere 
to see that it was paid.^ Oftentimes the two lived together 
in the parsonage house, the coadjutor as host, the retir- 
ing rector as guest. ^ At other times the premises were 
formally divided into two tenements, as in the following 
instance. In Bishop Stapledon's time the vicar of St. 
Xeot was stricken with leprosy. He appointed a chap- 
lain to be the vicar's coadjutor and ordered that he should 
have the better chamber, with the houses close by, except 
the hall, to live, eat and drink in; and that the door be- 
tween the chamber and the hall should be closed up and 
a new outside door cut in the former to give the vicar 
egress and ingress. The chaplain was to pay the vicar 
two shillings every week for food, drink, firewood and 
other necessaries, and every year about the feast of St. 
Michael twenty shillings for his clothes. "^ Bishop 
Shrewsbury made like detailed provision for a retiring 
prior. He was to have a suitable habitation for himself, 
one monk chaplain, one esquire, and one groom to serve 
him. He could take in eating, et cetra, as much as two 
monacJii claustraJes. Four loads of wood were to be 
given him every year for fuel.^ 

1 Grandisson's Beg.. 635, 829. 

- Ibid., 443: Drokensford's Bey., 24, 50, 127. 



Cutts. Parish Priests, 291. 

4 Stapledon's Beg., 342. 

5 Shrewsbury's Beg., 3' 



CHAPTER II. 
DIOCESAN SUPERVISION, 



The bishop was the ' ' supreme guardian of the whole 
diocesan property" and exercised a general superinten- 
dence over all details of its management. He could not 
alienate any part of it without the consent of the chap- 
ter." Thus, their confirmation was added to the grants 
of manumission to serfs on his manors, and the assent 
of the prior and convent of Durham was necessary when 
their bishop leased certain manors to some Florentine 
merchants in payment of a loan.^ 

Most bishops took a great interest in their cathedrals. 
A large amount of rebuilding was undertaken in the 
fourteenth century; the central tower of Lincoln Cathe- 
dral, the choir at Gloucester, and the nave of York Min- 
ster are examples of building done during the first half 
of the century. At Exeter the work of reconstruction 
which had been begun by Bishops Bytton and Quivil 
went on continuously through Stapeldon's and Grandis- 
son's episcopate, the former beautifully refitting and re- 
decorating the choir and accumulating a large supply of 
materials which was used by the latter in reconstructing 
the nave. Besides superintending the work of recon- 
struction, the bishops labored hard to obtain the neces- 
sary funds, contributing generously from their own pri- 
vate incomes. They granted indulgences to all the faith- 

1 c. 8, 9, X. III. X. 

-Grandisson's-Reg., 1166; Stafford's jRe^y., 332; Hist. Dun. Scrip. 

Tres. doc. CV. 

(24) 



25 

ful who would contribute, and gave the fees received for 
licenses and dispensations to the cathedral fund." From 
1310 until his death Bishop Stapeldon contributed about 
£124 annually from his private fortune, and made a final 
gift of a thousand marks/ 

The bishop's license must first be obtained before a 
church could be built or enlarged;^ a graveyard ex- 
tended,'^ a chapel erected, or a chantry founded.^ He de- 
signated the site for a church by fixing, or ordering a 
priest to fix, a cross in the ground where the altar was 
to be.^ He Avas careful, in licensing chapels, to make 
arrangements that the mother church should not suffer 
through withdrawal of offerings.^ On one or more of 
the festival days the people of the chapelries were re- 
quired to go in procession to the mother church with 

^ Grandisson's Reg., p. XXV; see ante p. 22. 

2 Stapeldon's Beg., p. XVI. 

3 Wilkins, Concilia, 137; Grandisson's i^e.g., 828, 908; Stafford's 
Beg., 39. 

^ Wykeham's Beg., II. 335. 

^ Wilkins, Concilia, 382; Grandisson's Beg., 508; Shrewsbury's 
Beg., 185. 

'^ Pontificale Bomana. 

^ Grandisson's Beg., 624, 626, 785. The datail of such regula- 
tions is illustrated by the following example. The parishion- 
ers of Kingsford, Cornwall, petitioned Bishop Stafford that, 
considering that they were a long way from the parish church, 
and the road along which funerals had to pass was dangerous 
and difficult, he would allow them to have a chapel and ceme- 
tery. He consented, provided the rector's income was not di- 
minished. Every parishioner was to hear mass once a year in 
the mother church and make an offering of one penny to the 
rector. The executors of a dead man were to pay one penny to 
the rector, just as if the burial had taken place at the parish 
church. Those lights which were carried into the cemetery 
with the body of the dead were to go to the rector, while those 
used only outside the cemetery the friends of the dead might 



26 

banners fl^'ing, and, of conrse, make their offerings/ 
He also licensed private oratories and chapels in the 
house of ecclesiastics, noblemen, or other influential per- 
sons. Bishop Grandisson granted eighty- two such li- 
3ences during his episcopate and Bishop Stafford granted 
the unusualh' large number of 253/ 

Much pressure was brought to bear upon bishops by 
monasteries and collegiate churches to obtain the appro- 
priation of parish churches. They pleaded poverty; 
that they were on a much traveled highway and could 
not give hospitality to all the travelers that came to 
them; that their buildings had been burned, and the 
like.^ The confirmation of the chapter was necessary to 
give validity to any appropriation by the bishop, liahito 
super eis cum dicfis Decano et Capitulo tractatu solempni 
et diligenti is found in all Grandisson' s letters of appro- 
priation. Bishop Drokensford reproved the priory of 
Bath for "granting mischievous confirmations" to the 
acts of his predecessor in granting away episcopal prop- 
erty.^ In a diocese where there were two cathedrals, as 
Bath and Wells, the consent of both had tobe obtained.^ 
A considerable number of the appropriations were at 
the command of the pope. Monasteries in favor at Rome 
petitioned for license to appropriate certain churches. 

keep. No "lofty tombs of stone" were to be set up in the new 
cemetery without first paying the rector six pence. (Stafford's 
iJeg., 227-228.) 

^ Cutts, Parish Priests, 120. 

■^ Graiidisson's Beg., index; Stafford's Beg., 270-283. 

3 Grandisson's Beg., 698, 773, 729, 872. 

* Drokensford's Beg., 196. 

•'Drokensford's i?ef/., 224. Suit was brought in the Court of 
Arches by the bishop and Wells chapter because the previous 
bishop had appropriated a church to Bath Priory without ask- 
ing for the confirmation of the Wells Chapter (Ibid., 120). 



The pope usually granted a conditional license, com- 
manding the bishop to inquire into the facts and if they 
were as alleged by the petitioner to confirm the appro- 
priation. Bishop Norbury of Lichfield (1322-1358) 
confirmed twenty-five papal appropriations." A bishop 
often provided for his obit by appropriating a church 
to the dean and chapter, from the income of which they 
were to pay the expenses of its celebration." 

In granting an appropriation, the bishop specified min- 
utely the division of the tithes between the vicar to be 
placed in charge of the church and the house or person 
receiving the appropriation, In general, the latter re- 
ceived the great tithes, the tithes of corn, and the former 
the customary offerings and fees and the small tithes, 
tithes of wool, fish, poultry, milk, cheese, honey, etce- 
tera.^ The extent of the vicar's garden, the size of his 
house, the responsibility for the repair of church vest- 
ments, books, and ornaments were definitely stated in 
the deed of appropriation. Oftentimes the arrangement 
proved unsatisfactory and the bishop again had to inter- 
fere, usually to augment the portion of a starving vicar.* 

The detailed oversight of church property was the duty 
of the archdeacon in visitation and was the part of his 
work most emphasized by church councils. The bishop, 
also, in his visitations, examined into the condition of 
churches and all property relating thereto, but at any 
other time when complaint reached him from any part ' 

1 Norbury "s Beg., 288. 

•^ Bronescombe's i?e^., 243: Stafford's _Ke(/., 336; Grandisson's 
Beg., 873. 

3 Grandisson's i^ff/., 1104: Drokensford's i?6(/., 171, 180; Beg. 
Pal. Dun., 1221. 

* Grandisson's Beg., 1196: Drokensford's Beg., 180: Beg. Pal. 
Dun., 1221. Occasionally the vicar's share was diminished. 
Grandisson's Beg., 716, 



28 

of his diocese, lie sent out commissioners to look into the 
situation, or issued a mandate to rectify the abuse. 
Bishop Richard de Bury of Durham learned through 
common report — fama publica — that the canons and pre- 
bendaries of the collegiate church of Norton allowed their 
walls and hedges to fall into ruin. He accordingly 
warned them to repair them before the next Easter, or 
he would sequestrate their property for the required 
amount." In the same manner, Bishop Grandisson dis- 
covered that prebendaries of Creditonhad given out their 
holdings to laymen to farm, who, occupying the houses 
with their wives and children, made public inns of them 
and carried on there questus turpis lucri. He commanded 
that the abuse be stopped, as it was against the sacred 
canons for benefices to be farmed by laymen/ Bishop 
Wykeham sent a monition to the parishioners of Lambeth 
who were unwilling to provide new church bells. ^ Noth- 
ing was too unimportant to escape the bishop's vigilance. 
Grandisson warned a certain Robert Lucy to return some 
posts he had taken from consecrated ground near the 
church of St. Mary, Exeter, both because things once 
consecrated should not be used for profane purposes, 
and because the lack of the posts hindered the processions 
from taking their proper form."* Wykeham issued a 
mandate against ball playing and stone throwing in the 
church yard of Winchester Cathedi-al, as it was very 
destructive to the church windows.^ Monitions against 
holding fairs and markets in churches and cemeteries 
are so frecjuently met with, that it would appear to have 
been difficult to enforce them.^ 

1 Beg. Pal Dun., III. 299. 

- Grandisson s Beg.. 1039. 

3 'vVvkeham's Beg.. 11. 284. 

^ Grandisson's Beg.. 909. 

5 Wvkeham si?e^".. II. 409. 

« Shrewsbury's Beg., 124. 250: Stafford's Beg.. 86. Such places 



29 

A constant source of annoyance and difficulty to the 
bishops was the condition of the abbeys and priories. 
They had got so badly into debt, in verj^ many cases, 
that, despairing of extricating themselves, they proceeded 
to squander their property still further. In 1328, Bishop 
Grandisson investigated the condition of Bodmin Priory 
and found the financial situation so serious, that, with 
the prior's own consent, he suspended him and gave 
the administration of the temporalities and spiritualities 
to two commissioners, with authority to remove incom- 
petent stewards and appoint others.' Again in 1343 he 
wrote to the prior, calling his attention to the fact that 
while the priory was in the hands of the commissioners 
it had been freed from debt and placed in good condition; 
now he had heard that it was again in such a deplorable 
situation that unless a speedy remedy was provided it 
would be brought to irreparable ruin. He ought to re- 
move him, but malentes de mansuetudine corripi qtiam 
rigore, he had for the present drawn up certain statutes 
which he ordered him and the monks to observe.^ 

In July 1331, the same bishop issued a commission to 
investigate the condition of Plympton Priory and order 
such measures for its reform as seemed best. He had 
learned that it was so overcome with debt that unless 
something was done, affairs would be bej^ond remedy.^ 
In December, 1346, he was again forced to send commis- 
sioners to examine into the sate of the priory. The re- 
were especially desirable for fairs and markets, because, being 
consecrated, they afforded a better market-peace than could be 
obtained elsewhere. 

There was a statute against the practice-13 Edw. II. (Statutes 
of Realm, I: 28.) 

^ Grandisson's Z?e^., 423. 

^ Ibid,, 919. 

^ Ibid., 620. 



30 

port was so bad that lie suspended the prior, appointing 
administrators to take charge of the temporalities, and 
drew up a list of rules for future observance/ 

Similarly, in 1829, he was forced to take the govern- 
ment of Tywardreath Priory out of the hands of the 
prior, because it had got so badly in debt.^ In Decem- 
cember, 1318, TotnesPriory wasfound tobe inanequally 
bad condition. He sent ordinances for its regulation and 
suspended the prior. ^ Launceton Priory was also a 
source of great trouble to the bishop. In 1330, he sent 
a mandate to the prior to cut down unnecessary expenses 
so as to relieve the monastery from its financial embar- 
rassment.^ The priorwas very incompetent and dissolute, 
dampnacionis filius lU timemus, and finally, in 1314 the 
bishop suspended him.^ However' he was a direct 
hindrance to any improvement in the state of the monas- 
tery and the next year he forced him to resign. ^ 

All these diffi^ulites 03curred in one diocese during one 
episcopate. The fact that the priors of five priories 
were suspended for wasting their property, shows not 
only the state of the monasteries but also the large 
amount of attention the bishops were required to give to 
that part of their work. It is rather suggestive that a 
blank form of commission to inquire touching a monas- 
tery under an incompetent abbot should have found its 
way into a bishop's register.' Bishop Drokensford had 
much the same experience as Bishop Grandisson in con- 
nection with the nunneries of his diocese.^ 

1 Grandisson 's, Beg., 1011. 

- Ibid., 455. 

3 Ibid., 1073-1075. 

* Ibid., 561 

5 Ibid., 989. 

« Ibid., 1002. 

'^ Drokensford "s Beg.. 203. 

^Ibid.,9Q, 100, 221, 228.210. 



31 

Bishops, furthermore, exercised a general oversight 
over the conduct and education of the people of their 
dioceses, both clerical and lay. The}' licenged masters to 
keep grammar schools and interfered if their instruction 
was not as it should be. Being grieved that before boys 
knew how to read well the hours of the Blessed Virgin 
and the simple responses of the service, they were set to 
work on less useful books, lihros magistrales et poeticos ant 
metricos, Bishop Grandisson ordered the archdeacon to see 
that teachers in the grammar schools attended to the re- 
ligious instruction first." The oversight of daily con- 
duct, like the supervision of church property, was sys- 
tematically carried out through their and the archdeacon's 
visitations, but as occasion required they sent out their 
mandates on a great variety of subjects, to check an 
abuse here, or admonish an unworthy person there, to set 
right, in fact, whatever needed their interference. Lay- 
men were commanded not to hold markets on Sundays 
and fast daj^s."" Bishop Wykeham ordered the barbers of 
Winchester not to keep open their shops on Sundays, 
and on another occasion he admonished shoemakers and 
cobblers to refrain from work on that day.' In 1352, 
Bishop Grandisson forbade the performance of an "in- 
jurious and scandalous play" in the Exeter theatre."* 
"Whereas there is a natural order of mankind that 
women should serve their husbands," a certain ChriS/- 
tiana atte Wode was ordered by Bishop Giffard to obey 
her husband and treat him with wifely affection.^ 

The clergy as a body and as individuals were scored for 
their shortcomings by the bishops from time to time in no 

^ Grandisson's Heq., 1192. 

2 Grandisson' s Beg., 1203; Wykeham' si?e^., 11- 416, 521. 

3 Wykeham's Reg., 11.431. 
* Grandisson's Reg., 1120. 
-Giffard's J^eg., 76. 



32 

uncertain language. Bishop Grosseteste in a letter rebuk- 
ing one of his clerks, called him "a blot on the clergy, a 
shame to thecdogians, a delight to the enemies of re- 
ligion, a derision and song and story to the vulgar," 
Bishop Grandisson wrote to the Dean of Exeter in 1330 
to discipline the cathedral vicars. He had learned 
"through the account of the faithful" that they 
laughed and behaved otherwise irreverently during ser- 
vice, that those in the higher seats of the choir deliber- 
ately dropped hot wax from their candles upon the heads of 
those beneath to excite a laugh, and that when any one 
made a mistake in singing, the others called out the cor- 
rection in a loud and jeering voice. ^ In spite of the sump- 
tuary laws of the church, the clergy persisted in dress- 
ing like laymen, and the archdeacons would not inter- 
fere. Consequently, bishops issued mandates again and 
again, ordering them to wear the tonsure and the long 
gowns. ^ They kept watch over the affairs of the monks 
as well, interfering, for example, to prevent too severe 
punishment of one who had broken the discipline of his 
House, or ordering one whom the abbot or prior has cast 
out to be reinstated.'* The perpetual vicar of Sutton 

^ Grosseteste'sXetters, 48. 

'^ Grandisson ■ s i?e|7., 586. 

^ Grandisson's Beg., 959. Archbishop Stratford's constitutions, 
1342, described existing conditions as follows: "Because persons 
holding ecclesiastical dignities . . . scorn to wear the ton- 
sure, which is the crown of the kingdom of heaven and of per- 
fection, and distinguish themselves by hair spreading to their 
shoulders in an effeminate manner, and walk about clad in 
military rather than in clerical dress, with the outer habit very 
short and tight fitting, with long sleeves which do not touch the 
elbow; their hair curled and perfumed . . . with long 
beards, rings on their fingers and girded belts studded with 
precious stones of wonderful size," etc. Wilkins, Concilia, II. 703. 

^ Shrewsbury's Beg., 114; Beg. Pal. Dun., 33; Wykeham's 
Beg., II. 60. 



33 

joined the monks of St. Augustine, but when Bishop 
Grandisson heard of it he commanded him to return to 
secular life as his teaching and example had been very 
pleasing and helpful to his parishioners, and he was of 
great service to the Lord as vicar/ 

Visitation. — Visitation was an important dutj^ of the 
bishop in that it enabled him to become acquainted with 
the local needs of every part of his diocese. However 
great a feudal landlord a bishop might be, however in- 
fluential an official of the king, by means of visitation 
the humblest parishes felt the inspiration of his presence 
and the guidance of his larger wisdom in clearing up 
their petty problems. 

In early times bishops were expected to visit the clergy 
of their diocese at least once a year.^ It is stated of 
Ralph, bishop of Chichester (1091-1123) , that he visited 
his clergy thrice j^early.^ But after the dioceses had been 
divided into archdeaconries and the archdeacons began 
to hold their visitations, this was less necessary, Gros- 
seteste began the account of his visitation of the people 
and clergy of his diocese which he addressed to the pope 
and cardinals in 1250 hy saying: — "The bishops of Lin- 
coln have been accustomed in times past to visit the re- 
ligious houses of the diocese subject to them and to re- 
ceive procurations from the same. Of this customarj^ 
practice it is not now my intention to speak, but of what 
is not customary, if you will kindly listen,'"* By the 
fourteenth century triennial visitation had come to be re- 
garded as customary. In 1319 Bishop Drokensford, in 

1 Grandisson' s Beg., 674 

^Wilkins, Concilia, 1.212; Constitution of Archbishop Odo. 
(943 A. D.). 

3 Wm. Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, 206-207. 

* Praepositio Boherti Grosthed de Visitatione in Wharton II. 
347. 



34 

a statement setting forth his rights of jurisdiction, said: — 
"the lord Bishop by common right has the privilege and 
right to visit all the parochial churches and the clergy 
and people of the same in each archdeaconry of his dio- 
cese at least once in three years."' In the sixteenth 
century, the legatine council under Cardinal Pole referred 
to triennial visitation as an old custom/ However, this 
duty was frequently executed by special commissioners 
appointed by the bishop. No doubt such visitation was 
thorough and salutary, but our interest lies in seeing 
how much personal inspection of this kind the bishop 
managed to give his diocese. Some idea of the extent 
of this during the fourteenth century may be gained by 
examining the text of the bishops' registers and the it- 
ineraries worked out from the signatures to the docu- 
ments. 

Bishop Kellawe personally visited the archdeaconry of 
Durham in 1311, the first year of his episcopate. He 
intended also to visit his other archdeaconry, Northum- 
berland, but was prevented by the Scotch war.^ No 
later mention of a general visitation is made. In the 
part of the register of Richard de Bury which we pos- 
sess, extending from 1338 to 1343, there is one notice of 
a visitation of his diocese, namely in 1343. '^ As to the 
diocese of Bath and Wells, Bishop Drokensford was car- 
rying on a general visitation in 1313, for in September 
he deputed commissaries to complete it as he had been 
summoned to London. Bishop Shrewsbury sent notices 
to all the rural deans in 1333 that he intended to visit 

^ Reynolds, Wells Cathedral, 136. 

2 Wilkins, Concilia, IV. 121: Bishops should visit their dio- 
ceses juxta antiquam hujus regni consuetudinem saltern singulis 
triennis. 

3 Beg. Pal Dun., 62, 63, 70, 75, 115. 
^Ibid., III. 522. 



35 

their deaneries; in Angnst, 1337, he began another vis- 
itation which seems to have lasted nntil the end of the 
year. Xo fnrther notice occnrs nntil 1349, when the 
bishop is found visiting the parish church at Yeovil, but 
even then we learn nothing as to whether it was part of 
a general diocesan visitation. There is one other simil- 
arly unsatisfactory statement, a reference to an event 
which took place in December 1353, as occuring at the 
late visitation." In the diocese of Winchester, Bishop 
Wykeham gave notice (1373) to all rural deans that he 
intended to hold a general visitation of clergy and people, 
qui sine cum et reyimine visitacionis jjcistoralis nonfuodico 
tempore prosfiterunt.^ 

However, it would be hazardous to draw any final con- 
clusion from the mere absence of evidence. The editor 
of the Exeter registers has carefully worked out the itin- 
erary of the different bishops and more satisfactory in- 
formation can be obtained from that source. Bishop 
Bronescombe (1257-1280) began his first visitation in 
August, 1259, and it lasted until February, 1260. Still 
he did not visit all the diocese, North Devon being left 
out. The following year he went over mnch the same 
ground as before. He did not again make a general vis- 
itation of the diocese, and did not visit North Devon thor- 
oughly until 1272.^ Bishop Quivil'sC 1280-1291) itinerary 
does not give evidence of any general visitation. Bishop 
Stapeldon, although constantly employed in the royal ser- 
vice, managed to accomplish a considerable amount of 
visitation. He visited Cornwall very thoroughly in 1309, 
North Devon the next year and a nnmber of scattering 
places in 1311; so that in those three years he completed 

^ Drokensford's Beg., 159; Shrewsbury's i^eg., 153, 151, 315, 
596, 731. 

- Wykeham's Beg., 11. 189. 
=^ Bronescombe's Beg. , 295, 296. 



36 

the inspection of Ms whole diocese. His next long vis- 
itation was begun in April, 1318, and lasted six months. 
Once more he visited both counties in 1321." Bishop 
Grandisson visited for the most part by deputy. He visited 
Cornwall slightly in 1328, more thoroughly in 1330, and 
completed the visitation between May and August, 1336. 
He also held a partial visitation of Devon during October 
and May, 1333.^ Bishop Stafford made a visitation in 
1400 and again in 1411, each covering the whole, or a great 
part, of the diocese.^ 

In addition to these general visitation tours, parishes 
lying on the road between the bishop's favorite manors 
were visited freciuently; and almost every year, on ac- 
count of some disturbance or other cause, a particular 
region received his special attention. In general there 
seems to have been little regularity as to time and 
amount of visitation. Most bishops attempted to make 
a general tour through their dioceses soon after installa- 
tion, but thereafter all depended upon circumstances. 
Judging from the evidence obtainable, two complete per- 
sonal visitations might be considered a high average for 
an episcopate. 

When a bishop traveled about through his diocese, he 
was accompanied bv a numerous train. Bishop Giffard 
(1290) visited Worcester Priory with a hundred and fifty 
horses and staid three days. "^ In his visitation of Corn- 
w^all, in 1336, Bishop Grandissson had with him three 
noblemen, two archdeacons, the chancellor and a canon 
of the cathedral, many chaplains from his chapel, ceter- 
isque suis familiaribus et domesticis et exteris, in multitud- 

1 Stapeldon's Beg., 548, 550, 555-557. 
^ Grandisson's Beg., 1524-1532. 
3 Stafford's i^e.g., 476-479. 
* Annales Monastici, IV. 504. 



37 

ine populosa/ Both popes and diurch councils felt the 
necessity of fixing a limit to the size of the retinue, as it 
was incumbent upon the clergy visited to furnish pro- 
visions during the bishop's stay. The Latern Council of 
1179 provided that a bishop could not demand hospitality 
for a retinue of more than twenty or thirty horses." 
Again in 1252, Pope Innocent IV, inreturn forthe grant 
of a twentieth by the beneficed clergy of England, de- 
creed that bishops could not demand procurations for 
more than thirty horses, or receive in money more than 
thirty shillings.^ 

If the account of a visitation of one of the less wealthy 
dioceses in 1289-90 is at all representative, bishops kept 
near if they did not exceed the limit of the law. Eichard 
Swinfield, bishop of Hereford, in that year visited the 
parishes of his diocese with thirty-five horses. On one 
of the days when he did not receive procurations, his 
steward paid 32 shillings, 4 pence for food for the people 
alone, which together with the food for the horses 
amounted to considerably more than the sum permitted 
by law.^ The value of the rectories he visited just 
previously is given as thirteen pounds in the taxation of 

1 Grandisson's Beg,, 320. 

2 Annales Monastici, IV. 300. 

3 Ibid. III. 186. In 1335, Pope Benedict XII. drew up a. com- 
plete tariff for all countries of Europe. In England bishops 
were not to receive for one day, from churches less than colle- 
giate churches, more than 12i gold florins. Wilkins, II. 186. 

* Swinfield 's Boll., -p. 76. The steward expended his money as 
follows: ''For bread 4 s. 2 d. 6 sextaries, 2 gallons of wine, 6 s. 
8 sextaries of beer, 3 s. 4d. For cartage, 2 d. 4: capons already 
accounted for. 1 carcass and a half of beef, 6 s., Q d. 2 sides of 
bacon, 2 s. 2 d. 1 porker, 20 d. 2 calves, 20 s. 10 d. 3 little pigs, 
12 d. 9 hens, 12 d. 48 pigeons, 22 d. 1 carcass and 2 porkers 
were a present. Of these there remains 1 carcass of beef, half 
a hog. For 1 sheep, 10 d. fish, 6 d. bread, 2 d." 



38 

Pope Nicholas IV/ Consequently a visit from the bishop 
was no small drain upon the rector's income. Still it was 
a great honor to have him come and he was received with 
ringing of bells and all due respect. Occasional excep- 
tions occurred. When in 1349 Bishop Shrewsbury was 
holding vespers in the parish church at Yeovil during his 
visitation, "certainsons of perdition," he relates, "form- 
ing the community of the said town, having assembled 
in a numerous multitude with bows, arrows, iron bars, 
stones and other kinds of arms, fiercely wounded many of 
our servants of God to the abundant spilling of blood. 
But not content with these evil doings they shut us and 
our servants in the said church until the darkness of the 
night of the same day, and afterwards they incarcerated 
us and our servants in the rectory of the said church 
until on the day following the neighbors, devout sons of 
the church and all worthy of commendation, delivered us 
from so great danger and from our prison".^ 

The bishop very generally visited several parishes to- 
gether. Wykeham and Grandisson cited each deanery to 
one meeting place, while Shrewsbury took four churches 
at a time.^ To the church fixed upon by the bishop were 
to come all rectors, vicars, and chaplains, and three, or 
four, or six worthy laymen from each parish, according 
to its size.^ When Grosseteste, in the thirteenth centur3% 
had attempted to compel the attendance of the laymen, 
as sworn precentors of grievances, and also of witnesses, 
Henry III. had inhibited him in that he was encroaching 

^ Swinfield's Boll, 172, 173. 

2 Shrewsbury's Beg., 596. 

3 Wykeham 's Beg., II. 189; Grandisson's Beg., 382, 393;; 
Shrewsbury's Beg., 153. 

• 4 Grandisson's i?e^., 382, 639; Beg., Pal, Dun., 63, 84. 



39 

upon secular jurisdiction." Notwithstanding, laymen 
continued to be present and give information at all the 
episcopal and archdeaconal visitations, although the king 
continued to send out inhibitions from time to time, as 
is shown by the constitutions of Archbishop Boniface 
(1261).' In 1307, the dean of Christianity of Worces- 
ter was ordered to cite four from each parish "not those 
whom the rectors and vicars would name,'' but those 
whom he should himself select.^ 

The inquiries of the bishop on his visitation were along 
four lines. First, all the clergy were expected to exhibit 
their letters of ordination and of institution. If they 
held plural benefices, or enjoyed any other privilege for 
which especial license was necessary, they must exhibit, 
also, their dispensations.^ In the second place, he received 
information regarding the rectors and vicars, both as to 
their efficiency in discharging their duty, and in regard 
to their manner of life in general. Did they visit the 
sick and carry the sacrament to the dying? Were they 
frequently absent from the parish? Did they frequent 
taverns? Did they go about without the clerical dress, 
et cetera? Again, the conduct of the laity was inquired 
into. Whether they were guilty of any of the seven 
deadly sins. Whether they worked on the Lord's day or 
feast days. Whether they spent their time in public inns, 
and similar questions.^ Finally, the condition of the 
church property was minutely investigated. Bishop 
Stapeldon in his visitation of Axminster church in June, 
1315, found it lacked an image of St. John the Baptist, 

1 Stubbs, Ucc. Courts Comm. Beport Appendix, 1. 27. 

2 Wilkins, Concilia, I. 751. 
^ Beg. Sede Vacante, 116. 

* Grandisson's Beg., 382; Drokensford's Beg., 159. 
^ Burton Annals, 296, 307; Stapledon's Beg., 194. 



40 

and the vicar and parishioners were required to provide 
one before Christmas, and, in addition, a Legendary of 
the Saints, an Ordinale, a Chrismatory and a candle- 
stick for the Easter candle/ He considered the parish 
church of Ilfracombe too small and ordered that within 
two years it should be lengthened twenty-four feet, at 
least, and broadened by two aisles/ At Staverton he 
discovered that there was a lack of festival vestments, 
the missale was falsa although beautiful, and there was 
no vase for incense/ In this way he went through the 
diocese, ordering improvements in the fabric, and new 
ornaments and vestments to be provided. 

Visitation was also judicial in character. If disputes 
existed between parishioners, if a rector or layman denied 
the charge made to the bishop against him, the latter 
could, and frequently did, take the testimony of those 
present, or allow the accused to purge themselves, and 
thus adjudicate the questions on the spot.^ In more dif- 
ficult cases, he cited the persons to appear before him or 
his commissary on a certain day when the matter would 
receive a full hearing.^ William de Dene relates that the 
bishop of Rochester spent the winter of 1320 at one of 
his manors, Trottsyclyve, attending to the corrections re- 
sulting from a visitation of his diocese the previous au- 
tumn.^ 

Moreover, ordaining and confirming — all the bishop's 
powers, in short, were exercised during visitation. Some 
bishops made a regular practice of preaching at such 



iStapledon's Beg., 38. 
2 J6zU,182. 
^ Ibid., 379. 

^Ibid., 327; Grandisson'sReg., 403. 
^Drokensford's jReg., 87; Beg. Pal. Dun., 306. 
« Hist. Boffensis in Wharton, I. 361. 



41 

times. Bishop Giffard was particularly fond of so doing 
and the texts of some of his sermons are given in his 
registers." They probably preached only to the clergy, 
while some rector or fn'ar preached to the people. In 
this whole connection Grosseteste's description of one 
of his visitations is exceedingly interesting: "When the 
clergy and people were called together, I, as usual, 
preached the word of God to the clergy and some Friar 
Preacher or Friar Minor preached to the people; and 
four friars then heard confessions and enjoined penance; 
having confirmedboys the same day and the next, I with 
my clerks made inquiries, corrections and reformations."" 
Bishop Grandisson has recorded an account of his visita- 
tion of St. Buryan, Cornwall. The church had been in 
a state of rebellion for some time, but the parishioners 
were anxious to be reinstated in his favor. Accordingly 
they one and all knelt down before him and with uplifted 
hands confessed that they had been rebels against the 
unity of the Church and promised obedience for the 
future. He then preached to them in Latin and after he 
had finished, the sermon was translated into Cornish by 
an interpreter. He also conferred the first tonsure and 
confirmed a great many children — quasi innumerahiles .^ 
The archdeacon visited his archdeaconry once a 
year.'* He was expected to keep a list of all the orna- 
ments, books and vestments in every church, so that he 
could see each year "what had been added through the 
diligence of the parishioners, or what through wickedness 



iGiffard's Beg., 230, 236, 339. 

^ Praepositio Boberti Grosthed de Visitatione, in Wharton, II. 
347. 

^ Grandisson' s Beg., 820. 

^c. 6, X. I. xxiii; Wilkins, Concilia, I. 589; Lyndwood, Fro- 
vinciale, 49. 



42 

or neglect had deteriorated."' There was constant com- 
plaint about the manner in which he discharged his office. 
Bishop Grandisson, in 1354, commanded his archdeacons 
to investigate more carefully the condition of the vestments 
in the different churches. He had heard that those 
which should be white were so abominably dirty that 
ad naiisecfm, quod dicere pudei, multociens provocant in- 
tuentes et derocionem refrigerant eorundem.''^^ The more 
frequent complaints were because of over officiousness. In 
1329, the same bishop appointed commissioners to inquire 
into the charge of the parochial churches against the 
archdeacon of Exeter, namely, that he had levied ex- 
orbitant fines on them for defects found in visitation .^ 
Some years later, stating that the fines levied for defects 
in churches ought to be applied to the use of the churches 
visited, and not appropriated by the visitors, he com- 
manded the archdeacons to return to the churches within 
a month what they had extorted from them."* In 1308, 
the archdeacons of Winchester were demanding twelve 
pence a year from each church, under the name of 
"larder gift" or "archdeacon's pig."^ As in the case of 
bishops, the Latern Council of 1179 limited the number 
of horses they might take with them on visitation, and 
the pope (1252) fixed the maximum number at seven, or 
a money equivalent of 7 s, 3/^ d.^ None the less, the 
clergy of the archdeaconry of Richmond in the early part 
of the fourteenth century complained that they had to 
entertain the archdeacon's train of fifteen or twenty-four 
horsemen, each of whom had a dog with him.' 

^ Wilkins, Concilia, I. 589. 

2 Grandisson's Beg., 1126. 

3i6zd.,4T4. 

^ Ibid., 1008. 

5 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 300. 

^ Annales Monastici, III. 186. 

^Raine, Torh 164. 



43 

The cathedrals and religious houses because of their 
importance and the fact that they were exempt from 
archdeaconal visitation, were quite frequently visited by 
the bishops. For their part, they resented this interfer- 
ence in their affairs and prevented it whenever possible. 
The struggle with the cathedral chapters waxed hottest 
in the second half of the thirteenth century. Bishop 
Grosseteste's controversy with the Lincoln chapter lasted 
for six years, and in insisting upon his privilege he 
maintained that he was battling for the neglected rights 
of all the English bishops. The story is well known. In 
1239 he set a date in October for the canons to undergo 
visitation. They immediately sent an appeal to Rome 
and replied to him that they had not been visited since 
the earliest times, and could not, therefore, be subject to 
his visitation.' On the appointed day the bishop went to 
the cathedral, but found not a single canon or vicar 
present to receive him. The difficulty was submitted to 
arbitration, but was not settled until 1245, when the 
pope decided in favor of Bishop Grosseteste. The result 
discouraged other chapters from trjdng to claim exemp- 
tion through lapse. In the fourteenth century, probably 
in all dioceses except Salisburj^, the bishop visited his 
cathedral.^ However, he was often given an unsatisfac- 
tory reception. Bishop Drokensford endeavored to visit 

1 Grosseteste's Letters, 248, 254, 258. 

2 At Salisbury, by virtue of an agreemert made between 
bishop and chapter in 1262, no visitation was held from that 
date until the end of the fifteenth century. Heg. St. Osmund, 
I. 353; Jones, Salishury, 110. 

At York, the archbishop, in settling some controverted ques- 
tions with the chapter, agreed (1292), that they were to be 
visited only once in five years. Historians of York, III. 216. 

At London, in accordance with ancient custom, the bishop on 
the first day of his visitation had to give a banquet to all canons 
present. Reynolds, Wells Cathedral, p. CLXi. 



44 

Wells Cathedral and Bath Priory in 1311 and found all 
inquiry balked by the oaths of secrecy which the canons 
and monks had taken. He excommunicated all who had 
joined in such oaths, but did not attempt to proceed 
further with the visitation at that time." 

If the right to visit was not under controversy, there 
was always the possibility of a dispute over the manner 
of conducting it. The monks of Durham refused to re- 
ceive their bishop in visitation in 1300 because he was 
accompanied by a large number of clerks not of their 
order. The imperious Anthony Bek was then bishop. 
He sequestered the property of the priory, imprisoned 
the monks in the monastery, would not allow provisions 
to be brought in to them, and shut off their water supply 
by cutting all the water pipes. He also nominated 
another prior and installed him in the cloister with an 
armed force." The pope settled the trouble (1303) by 
providing that the bishop was to bring with him in 
visitation two or three clerks, one of whom was to be a 
religious of their order, a clerical notary, and no others.^ 
This particular question seemed very important to all 
cathedral priories as the idea of secular clerks prying 
into their affairs was much disliked. At Worcester, 
clerks could accompany the bishop to the monastery and 
be present when the temporalities were discussed, but 
when visitation regarding the spiritualities began, they 
had to retire.'^ 

As to the monasteries, special privileges gave rise to 
a great variety of conditions. The Cistercians, Cluniacs, 



^ Drokensford's Reg., 153. 

2 Raine, Letters from Northern Begisters, 144: Papal Letters, 
I. 589. 

3 Papal Letters, I. 603. 

* Reg. Sede Vacante, 54. 



45 

Premoustrateusians, and Friars were subject oulv to the 
pope. Other large and powerful monasteries, like St. 
Albans and Evesham, obtained papal bulls freeing them 
from episcopal visitation. Also the daughter houses of 
exempt monasteries claimed the same privilege. Thus 
Great Malvern Priory, a cell of Westminster Abbey (a 
royal abbey and therefore exempt) , carried on a bitter 
dispute with Bishop Giffard over the question of visita- 
tion. Wholesale excommunications were launched on both 
sides and pope, king and archbishop took a hand in the 
affair. At length the pope decided that the exemption of 
Westminster extended to all its cells and priories, in- 
cluding Malvern.' Lastly, all royal chapels were exempt 
from the bishop's jurisdiction and were visited by the Lord 
Chancellor.^ This seems like a large amount of exemi)tion, 
but the number of houses in England belonging to each 
class was small and formed but a small fraction of the 
total number in a diocese. Exclusive of the Houses of 
the Friars, there were in the diocese of Worcester about 
thirty monasteries and ten nunneries, and of these only 
seven claimed exemption.^ Churches appropriated to 
exempt monasteries were generally visited by the bishop . 
The monks of Evesham, however, insisted that their 
papal privileges covered their churches in the vale of 
Evesham and appealed to Rome (1202) against the 
bishop's visitation. The case was never decided, and 
as the prior was to have jurisdiction while the question 
was pending, the bishop of Worcester was permanently 
excluded from them.^ 

Other monasteries and most of the hospitals the 

' Giffard's B^.g., 219. 

^Bot. Pari, I. 62 a: II. 77 b. 

3 Giffard's Beg., introduction, p. Lxxxviii. 

^ Chron. Abbat. Eveshamensis, 151-178: Giffard's Beg., 9. 



46 

bishops visited freely. There was no rule as to the order 
or amount and some received much more attention than 
others. An interesting agreement was entered into, in 
1315, by the monasteries of Gloucester, Cirencester, 
Worcester and Llanthony. They bound themselves by 
oath to defray by common expense any suit that should 
arise from any invasion of the liberties of any one of 
them by the bishop of Worcester. Furthermore, they 
agreed that while any one of them was in difficulty with 
the bishop, the others would not receive him.' Theoccasion 
for this compact was that they considered the bishop was 
exceeding his rights of visitation. 

The inspection of the bishop was so thorough that it 
is not surprising cathedrals and monasteries tried to avoid 
it. Bishop Grandisson (1337) with the help of commis- 
sioners examined each of the Exeter canons separately 
on fifty- one questions.^ The abbot of the important 
house of Glastonbury was given a lecture by Bishop 
ShrewsbuiT (1350) on conducting himself with kindli- 
ness and moderation towards the monks. He was also 
to see that they had enough to eat, "especially bread 
and beer sufficiently good and decent that they can cheer- 
fully dwell in the state to which God has called them."^ 
The reforms ordered show that bishops were striving to 
have the old rules of monastic life observed at a time 
when many influences combined to bring about a break 
down of the whole system. Canons were not to associ- 
ate or play games with those having corrodies; monks 
were to cease "the unprofitable habit of wandering about 
the country side;" all were to assemble in the refectory 
.at meal time and none be allowed to eat apart. '^ Details 

1 Hist, et Cart. Monasterii Gloucestriae, I. 110. 

=^ Grandisson's Becj., 855. 

3 Shrewsbury's Beg., 606. 

''Ibid., 601,. 710; Grandisson's Beg., 1071. 



of financial mauagement, or mismanagement, were ex- 
amined into with particular care and attention, and the 
removal of incompetent officials required. 

In theory, the visitations of the bishop and his arch- 
deacons were to be supplemented by those of the arch- 
bishop. Archiepiscopal visitation did not occur of ten, ^ 
but when it was undertaken, it was done thoroughly, as 
is evident from Peckham's and Mepeham's provincial 
visitations. The bishop's subjects were cited to certain 
central churches and underwent an examination, relig- 
ious houses were inspected, exactly as in episcopal visita- 
tion. In accordance with the canon law, the archbishop 
could correct faults detected in visitation which were of 
a flagrant nature, all other cases had to be handed over 
to the bishop or his official for correction.^ Peckham's 
suffragans complained that he exceeded his jurisdiction 
and decided matters which were non notoriiset occuJtis.^ 

The bishop disliked the archbishop's visitation quite 
as heartily as the cathedral chapter resented his, and for 
exactly the same reasons. The expense, the interference 

^ Archbishop Mepeham, soon after his accession, (1329) ob- 
tained a papal bull stating that inasmuch as the ill-health of 
his predecessors, Winchelesey and Reynolds, had hindred visi- 
tations being made for so many years, doubt had arisen as to 
the order in which they were taken. He was to visit first his 
own chapter and diocese, then whatever diocese seemed most to 
need it. Papal Letters, II. 290. 

^c. 1, 5, in 6, III. XX. Hinschius, Kirchenreclit, II. ]5, 16. 
Peckham wrote to the bishop of Exeter that in his visitation of 
the diocese he had heard accusations against the archdeacon of 
Cornwall of a notorious character and had granted him a hear- 
ing. But the archdeacon, pretending that the matter was not 
notorious, had secured a trial and purged himself. He now sent 
the list of charges to the bishop to proceed in his stead and 
bringthe archdeacon to justice. Beg., 364. 

3 Peckham's J?eg., 328-332. 



48 

with his jurisdiction, and, above all, the searching ex- 
amination to which he was himself subjected was to be 
avoided whenever possible. Not only was he questioned 
on all matters that occurred to the archbishop, but 
this was the time for the clergy of the diocese, and espe- 
cially the cathedral chapter, to present their complaints 
against the bishop, and upon these he was also ques- 
tioned. At Archbishop Winchelesey's visitation in 
1301, Bishop Giffard was examined on thirty-six charges 
drawn up by the monks of Worcester, from the impor- 
tant charge that he appropriated churches without their 
consent, to the trivial complaint that members of his 
train broke utensils of the house during his visitation. 
William de Dene tells us that Archbishop Mepeham 
(1329) treated the bishop of Rochester inhumaniter dure 
et injuste, compelling him to clear himself by the pay- 
ment of a heavy fine.' 

^ Giffard's Beg., 548-551; Hist. Boffensis in Wharton, I. 369, 
370. The following are some of the charges of the Rochester 
monks: that the bishop did not travel about in his diocese, that 
he seldom preached, that he had appointed the present prior 
although he knew him to be illegitimate, that he was impatient 
and hot-headed, that he put his relatives in office, etcetera. 



CHAPTER III. 
COLLECTION OF REVENUE. 



The collection of taxes, papal, royal, and diocesan, 
consumed a considerable part of a bishop's time and at- 
tention. As Bishop Hobhonse remarked in his introduc- 
tion to Drokensford's register: "The bishop's energies 
and offices were largely occupied in the unpalatable work 
of collecting." The task was delegated in most cases, 
but the responsibility rested with the bishop . It is worth 
while to examine the different taxes collected from the 
clergy of a diocese. For convenience a limited period 
will be considered, the first half of the fourteenth cen- 
tury. 

The oldest papal tax, going back to Saxon times, was 
Peter's Pence. For each diocese, the amount paid had 
long since become fixed, and the manner of collecting it 
was governed by firmly established precedent. Thus at 
Worcester it was collected by rural deaneries, some of 
which for other purposes had long ceased to exist. The 
whole amount for England was small (£199, 6s. Sd.) and 
was paid with comparative regularity. Lincoln paid the 
largest sum, £42; Winchester paid £17, 6s., Exeter, 
£9, 5s. ^ The usual practice was for the rural deans to 
collect and pay their amounts to the archdeacon, who, in 
turn, handed them on to the bishop; but in the dioceses 
of Rochester, London, Winchester and Ely the archdea- 
cons paid directly to papal collector.^ Popes had long 

^Jensen. "Denarius Sancti Petri" in Royal Hist. Soc. Trans- 
actions, XV. n. s., 204-206. 

2 Ibid., 204, Durham paid to the archbishop of York instead 
of to the papal collector. 

(49) 



50 

complained that mucli more was collected in the dioceses 
than found its way into their treasury, but they never suc- 
ceeded in getting more than the customary amount/ In 
1337, the papal nuncio charged Bishop Grandisson with 
keeping part of the Peter's Pence for himself. He re- 
plied that he did not receive a penny more than he paid 
to the Roman Curia, but that the archdeacons reaped 
the profit/ It is quite certain that the archdeacons of 
Bath and Wells did so from the alacrity with which they 
appealed to the archbishop if their right of collection 
was interfered with/ At Worcester, the bishop received 
the surplus. He collected £34, 125. 7j4d.SiJid paid £10, 
5s., thus adding £24, 75. l^zd. to his annual income.* 
Another papal tax, introduced during the period under 
discussion, was first fruits of vacant benefices. Clement 
v., at his accession (1305), reserved for himself for 
three years the first fruits, that is, the first year's income, 
of all benefices which should fall vacant during that 
time. According to Walsingham, he had borrowed the 
idea from the English bishops who often petitioned the 
pope for that privilege upon their elevation to a see.^ 
John XXII. followed the example of his predecessor and 
upon coming into the papal chair (1316) also reserved 
the first fruits of all vacant benefices for a period of 
three years, promising one-half the amount collected to 
the king.^ Again in 1329, in order to aid the church 

1 Jensen, "Denarius Sancti Petri," 185. In 1306, Clement V. 
commanded the colleetor, Wm. de Testa, to get a penny from 
every house. 

2 Grandisson's Beg., 298. 
^Shrewsbury's Heg., 310. 
* Beg. Sede Vacante, 150. 
5 Neustria, 236. 

« Papal Letters, II. 127. 

The whole sum collected in England, Wales and Ireland for 
the first year was £6560, 8 s. 9 d. Sandale's Beg., 587. 



51 

against heretics in Itah' (meaning the supporters of 
Lewis of Bavaria and the anti-pope), he commanded a 
reservation of first fruits for three years, later extending 
the time to four years.' The king was again to receive 
one-half the amount. In this way the pope silenced any 
objection the king might make to having so much money 
taken out of the realm, and also gained his support in 
collecting the tax. At Exeter there were thirteen vacan- 
cies the first year, eight the second, five the third, and 
eleven the fourth. The whole amount paid to the papal 
collectors was £293, 18s. ^ The bishop handed all sums 
to the papal collector, together with a schedule giving a 
list of vacancies, with date of vacancy and taxation of 
each benefice. Clement VI. , at his accession, likewise re- 
erved the first fruits of all void beneficies for two years 
and this reservation was twice extended for a period of 
two j^ears.^ 

A tax which grew less frequent as the century ad- 
vanced was the papal tenth. It was assessed in accord- 
ance with the Taxatio of Nicholas IV. This valor, which 
the pope directed to be drawn up for collecting the sex- 

^ Bull given in full in Grandisson's Begister, 543. Churches 
falling vacant twice within a year were to be taxed only once. 
Archiepiscopal, episcopal and abbatial churches were to be ex- 
empt, also all churches under six marks in value. 

2 Grandisson's Beg., 736. 

^ Fapal Letters, III. 5, 9, 40. 

Reservation of revenue and reservation of patronage did not 
go together. It is sometimes stated that popes began by re- 
serving first fruits of benefices conferred by papal provision 
and the practice spread to the reservation of all benefices. 
But the three early cases, in 1306, 1316, and 1329, included all 
benefices, and the idea was more probably borrowed from 
the bishops, as Walsingham states. Gregory XI., in 1370, re- 
served first fruits of all benefices to which he provided 
(Wykeham's Beg., 167.) 



52 

ennial tenth granted by him to Edward I. to go on a 
crusade, was completed for the southern province in 1291 
and for the northern in 1292, and was the basis for esti- 
mating taxes until the valor of Henry VIII. Under the 
head of spiritualities it contained a statement of the 
annual value of every benefice in each diocese and under 
temporalities the income of ecclesiastics from manors, 
and other temporal property.' The amount given in 
each case was ratable value, and was without doubt 
much below the real value. This is clear from the bull 
of Pope John XXII (1329) reserving first fruits. In 
leaving a sufficient amount in each benefice to pro- 
vide for the spiritual duties attached to it, he author- 
ized the papal collector either to take the income as 
given in the taxatio and leave the remainder for the in- 
cumbent, or give him the taxed value and collect the re- 
mainder for himself.^ If the full value has not been 

^ The word spiritualities is used in two senses in ecclesiastical 
documents. As in Pope Nicholas' Valor, it is applied to the 
income from benefices as opposed to temporalities, the income 
from manors, but in speaking of the income of a bishop, arch- 
deacon or other ecclesiastical official, it commonly includes the 
revenue from benefices plus all money received as fees and per- 
quisites. In this sense it is used in the Valor of Henry VIII. 
The bishop's spiritualities from benefices alone was relatively 
not worth mentioning; he seldom had more than one church 
appropriated to his use, and his pensions in other churches 
were few. The bishop of Exeter received £30, 15 s., according 
to Henry VIII. 's Valor. Accordingly in estimating papal and 
royal tenths, the work is to be understood in the first sense, in 
discussing a bishop's income, in the second sense. 

2 Summa'pro qua unumquodque Beneficiorum ijjsorum in decima 
solucione taxatur exigatur et recipiatur. totali residuo BeneHcialiu- 
jus modi optinentibus remansuro, nisifortetu aut suhcoUectores pre- 
dicti residuum hujus modi pro nobis et Camera nostra velletis re- 
cipere et habere, et optinentibus Beneflcia hujus modi ad suppor- 
tanda onera et sustentacionenm habendam sum^na jiro qua Bene- 
ficia taxantur in Decima remanere. (Grandisson's Beg., 544.) 

The value of the Bishop of Exeter's manors is given in the 
Taxatio SiS £4Q1, 18 s. id. Exclusive of all payments in kind, 
the money rents from these manors is found in Stapeldon's 
Register to be a little over £550 (pp. 23-28). It is of little im- 
portance that the clergy grumbled at the valuation (see Capes, 
English Church; p. 27). Nothing else could be expected. 



53 

nearly twice the assessed value, popes would hardly have 
left the choice to the collectors. 

Pope Boniface VIII. in 1301 imposed a triennial tenth in 
aid of the Holy Land, one-half the amount collected to go 
to the king, the other to himself.' Clement V. levied a 
biennial tenth to run during 1307 and 1308 and a tri- 
ennial tenth to begin the following year. He reserved 
one-fourth for himself and gave the rest to Edward II. 
to aid him in undertaking a Crusade.^ In the Council of 
Vienne (1311) a sexennial tenth was ordered throughout 
Europe for the benefit of the Holy Land . In England 
this had been collected for one year when Pope John 
XXII. (1317) suspended the order and loaned the amount 
collected to the king. ^ Needing money for his war against 
Lewis of Bavaria, in 1329 he imposed a tenth for four 
years, the king to receive one-half the sum collected. "* 
Four years later he issued a bull levying a sexennial 
tenth for the crusade under the leadership of Philip of 
France. As this crusade never started, the bull was 
withdrawn in 1337, and the money which had been col- 
lected for one year was ordered to be returned, but in 
England it was granted to the king as an extra tenth. ^ 
Thus in the half century six different tenths were levied 
by the pope, and collected for fourteen separate years. 
Only twice were they collected solely for the Church and 
were in both cases finally granted to the king. 

Of all taxes, tenths were hardest to collect. Peter's 
Pence was a small tax, first fruits fell on vacant benefi- 
ces and could be demanded from the incumbent upon in- 
stitution, but tenths dragged on for years. In 1313 

1 Papal Letters, I. 598, 599. 

2 Rymer, Foedera, I. pt. IV. , 56, 68. 
'^ Papal Letters, II. 138. 

^ Ibid., 11. 494. 

5 Ibid., II. 534; Murimuth, Chron., 78. 



54 

Bishop Kellawe was still collecting the sexennial tenth 
imposed by Pope Nicholas IV. in 1291/ Pope John XXII. 
was a particularly efficient administrator and early in 
his pontificate endeavored to gather in the amounts due 
from the sexennial tenth of Nicholas IV., the triennial 
tenth of Boniface VIII, and the first fruits of Clement 
v."" In 1328, he wrote to his collector that part of the 
Holy Land tenths of Gregory X. [levied in 1274] , Boni- 
face VIII. and Clement V. was still unpaid and measures 
were to be taken to collect it.^ His own taxes were more 
systematically paid and the amounts sent to Rome larger 
than under his immediate predecessors. 

The fourth and last papal tax"* was for the expenses of 
the papal nuncios sent to England. There were two classes 
of papal legates. The collector who took charge of papal 
taxes and received the money paid in from the different dio- 
ceses was usually a legate sent from Rome for that purpose 
and the English clergy were required to raise a sum for 
his expenses. To the second class belonged those who 
came upon diplomatic missions. While the collector did 
not ordinarily occupy a high place in the Church, the 
latter were ecclesiastics of high rank, generally Roman 
cardinals. The pope took pains to specify in the bull of 
appointment the amount the legate was to receive. For 
an ordinary collector of revenue this was usually seven 
shillings a day.^ If the diplomatic mission was brief, 
the tax for the nuncios was also reckoned by days, but 

^ Beg. Pal. Dun , I. 420. 

2 Papal Letters, II. 425. 

^Ibicl, 486. 

4 The yearly cess of a thousand marks was a feudal tax paid 
by the king, when paid at all, and was not collected from the 
clergy. The pope received additional revenue from England, 
but it was derived from individual payments. 

'° Papal Letters, II. 117, 126, 453, 485. 



55 

was, of course, much higher, the archbishop of Ravenna, 
for example, receiving (1345) fifteen gold florins a day." 
In such case the archbishop estimated the tax that would 
be necessary and ordered its collection throughout the 
province ; in the particular instance of the archbishop of 
Ravenna ordering a tax of a quadrant on every forty 
shillings/ When the nuncios staid a year or more, the 
papal bull usually authorized them to receive the procura- 
tions customarily paid to a Roman cardinal. This was 
a well understood tax, four pence per mark, or a forti- 
eth of both spiritualities and temporalities.^ Usually two 
legates came together but they shared the fortieth and 
only occasionally succeeded in getting a fortieth apiece. 
The amount of the fortieth for Exeter was £111, 10 s. 6 
d. for the diocese and £12, 10 s. ll%d. for the bishop; 
for Durham, it was £236, 8 s. id. for the diocese, and 
£66, 13 5. 4 (Z. for the bishop.' 

From the nature of the case the frequency of these 
diplomatic missions varied. Two cardinals came to Eng- 
land in 1317 to further the truce between England and 
Scotland, and received a fortieth from the English clergy.^ 
But from the beginning of the fourteenth century to 
the outbreak of the Hundred Years War there were few 
such embassies. After 1338, however, there was a con- 
stant succession of important legates. Cardinals Peter 
Penestrini and Bertrand de Aquiro, sent in 1338 to make 
peace between England asd France, were employed on 
that mission for three years, receiving a fortieth each 
year.*^ After the accession of Clement VI. (1342) there 

^ Grandisson's Beg., 992. 

"^ Ibid., 994; Wilkins, Concilia, II. 535. 

3 Grandisson's Beg., 904, 931, 976; Beg. Pal Dun., III. 489. 

^ Grandisson's Beg., 868, 876; Beg. Pal. Pun., III. 489, 492. 

^ Sandale's Beg., 44; Papal Letters, II. 127. 

« Grandisson's Beg., 868, 904, 931. 



56 

was an added reason for the presence of papal nuncios 
in England in the increasing opposition of Parliament 
to papal provisions. Legates were sent to protest to 
the king against anj interference with papal privileges/ 
The tenth, or other fraction of their income, was al- 
most the only royal tax granted by the clergy. In ad- 
dition to the papal tenths in which "the king shared, the 
clergy raised twenty tenths, a fifteenth, a fortieth and a 
three-fortieths between 1300 and 1350. In only a few 
cases did they pay more than a tenth in any one year; 
consequently, the process of collection was practically 
continuous.^ 

1 Knighton, II. 1344; Murimuth, Chron., 161. 

2 The following is a statement of the papal and royal tenths 
(1300-1350). The dates given are the dates of the grants. Ref- 
erences for the papal tenths have already been given; royal 
tenths are most conveniently found in Stubbs, Const. Hist. II : 

1301— Triennial Tenth of Boniface VIII. 

1307— Biennial Tenth of Clement V. 

1307— Fifteenth— granted by both convocations. 

1309— Triennial Tenth of Clement V. 

1310 — 12 d. per mark — ^granted by convocation of Canterbury. 

1313 — 4 d. per mark — granted by both convocations. 

1311—12 d. per mark — granted by convocation of York. 

1315— Tenth — granted by both convocations. 

1316— Tenth — granted by both convocations. 

1317 — First year of Holy Land Tenth received by king. 

1319 — Tenth — granted by both convocations. 

1320 — Tenth — granted to king by pope. 

1322 — Biennial Tenth granted to king by pope. 

1322 5 d. per mark— granted by convocation of Canterbury. 

1327 — Tenth granted by both convocations. 

1329— Quadrennial Tenth of John XXII. 

1331 — Tenth granted by both convocations. 

1336 — Holy Land Tenth given to king. 

1336— Tenth— granted by both convocations. 

1337— Triennial Tenth— granted by both convocations. 

1338 — Tenth— granted by both convocations. 

1340 — Biennial Tenth — granted by convocation of York. 

1342 — Tenth — granted by both convocations. 

1344— Triennial Tenth— granted by both convocations. 

1346— Biennial Tenth— a^ranted bv convocation of Canterbury. 



57 

The clerical privilege of voting tlieii* own taxes in con- 
vocation and collecting tliem in tlieii' own way' had its 
bright side for the lay officials, who were thereby relieved 
of a burdensome task. Royal taxes were collected some- 
what more promptly than papal, for the king was close 
at hand and conld more readily levy upon the collector's 
property for arrears. The bishop appointed subcollect- 
ors to collect the tenths and empowered them to compel 
payment bj' ecclesiastical censure. He usually appointed 
the cathedral chapter, or an abbot or prior, as the money 
could be kept more safely by them. They, however, 
looked upon it as a disagreeable duty, to be escaped if 
possible. Bishop Drokensford in commissioning his 
chapter to collect the sexennial tenth in 1317, sent at 
the same time a letter under the small seal urging 
them to accept the commission, and also one to the dean 
with the same object.^ He further wrote out an alterna- 
tive commission to Glastonbury Abbey, in case they de- 
clined. A bitter controversy arose between the Bishop 
of Norwich and the monastery of St. Albans over the 
same matter. The bishop appointed the prior of Wy- 
mundham collector of the fifteenth granted to the king 
in 1380. The prior refused to serve, urging that he 
was subject to St. Albans, an exempt monastery. The 
question was settled by the king, who granted that 
neither the abbot nor the priors of his cells should be 
collectors of anv roval subsidv.^ 



1 In 1378 the clergy complaiaed to the king in parliament 
that their right of collecting taxes was interfered with by royal 
officials. He replied: "ies CJercs sont Unez et accoustumez de 
paier les Dimes de leur Benefices et de toutes autres lour possessions 
espiriteles a lour Prelatz . . . et neyure a laies gentz per 
aucune voie.''^ Rot. Pari. III. 48 b. 52 b. 

2 Drokensford' s Beg., 120. 

3 Cliron. Angliae, 258-260. 



58 

The bishop or subcollector sent in with the money a 
list of all persons in arrears, and after one or two gen- 
eral mandates to collect these arrears, royal writs were 
directed to the sheriff to levy on the property of the de- 
linquents. If they had no lay fee the order was trans- 
ferred to the bishop: "Because the clerks underwritten 
are beneficed in your diocese, having no lay fee as 
Thomas Carey, our sheriff of Somerset and Dorset, has 
testified, we command that j'ou cause the debts under- 
written to be levied from their ecclesiastical goods and 
benefices, namely, from the rector of Portland, 40 5., for 
the biennial tenth granted to us by the clergy in the 12th 
and 14th years of our reign. From the rector of Worth 
and Swanewych 4 Zi, 4 5., etcetera."^ Consequently, 
the registers are full, on the one hand, of writs of levari 
facias addressed to the bishop; on the other, of bishop's 
mandates to sequester the property of clerks. Bishops 
were not as expeditious as kings considered they ought 
to be. Many of the writs read: "We command you, 
as many times we commanded." "Know that you 
will be gravely fined in that you do not execute our 
mandate several times directed to you." "We have 
often written to you to cause the money of the second 
year of the biennial tenth to be levied, about which you 
have been lukewarm and remiss, at which we wonder." ^ 
The bishop often replied that the clerk had sold his 
grain and there was nothing to sequester, or that he had 
sequestered the required amount but could find no buy- 



^ Shrewsbury's Beg., 645. Writ is dated Oct. 11, 24th year of 
our reign. Some of the amounts were ten years overdue. 

2 Shrewsbury's Beg., 206,213, 214, 569; Stapeldon's Beg., 421; 
Drokensford's Beg., 56. 

3 Stapeldon's Beg., 421; Wykeham's i?e(/., II. 567. 



59 

of a zealous bishop proved inadequate for the ever- 
pressing need of the king,' 

Archiepiscopal taxes were very uncommon. The 
clergy might grant them in convocation, but the arch- 
bishop could not impose them without papal license. 
In 1300, the Convocation of London voted four pence 
per mark to pay the archbishop's debts. Again in 1352, 
Archbishop Islip, by papal privilege, levied four pence 
per mark on his province.^ 

All diocesan taxes have still to be considered. These 
might be classified as regular and special. There were 
two annual payments made in all dioceses, synodals and 
pentecostals. Every beneficed clerk, unless especially 
exempted, owed yearly to the bishop a small payment 
"in honor of the cathedral church and in token of sub- 
jection to it." ^ It was called cathedraticum and also 
synodaticum or synodalhim because it was originally paid 
at the bishop's synod. In his sj'nodal constitutions of 
1289, Gilbert, Bishop of Chichester, provided that those 
who did not pay their synodals before leaving the synod 
were to pay a double amount.^ In the fourteenth cen- 
tury, however, this tax was collected in many dioceses 
by the archdeacons, who had also acquired the right to 
retain part of it for themselves. Synodals are men- 
tioned in the Valor Ecdesiasticus of Henry VIII. as 
part of the archdeacon's income in most dioceses- Ac- 
cording to the Decretals of Gregory IX., two shillings 
was the proper payment from each benefice, and that 

^ The king reproached Bishop Grandisson with being negli- 
gent in collecting. He replied that he had already, although 
with much difficulty, done more than all the others in the prov- 
ince of Canterbury. Beg. , 69. 

2 Wilkins, Concilia, II." 260, 261; III. 26. 

3 Dansey, Bural Deans, I. 417. 
* Wilkins, Concilia, II. 180. 



60 

sum seems to have been usual, although by no means in- 
variable.' The bishop of Worcester received annually 
from synodals £12, 19 s. H d. in the archdeaconry of 
Gloucester, and £5, 85. in the archdeaconry of Worces- 
ter, while the archdeacon of Worcester received £2, 
17s.' 

It was an old custom for some one from each house- 
hold to go to the cathedral church on the feast of Pente- 
cost and make an offering of a farthing.^ Pentecostal 
processions with banners gaily flying came from the 
different parishes. Trouble sometimes arose on the way 
and a fight ensued, so that bishops were compelled to 
order that no one was to join in a procession with sword 
or other arms.'* Those who did not come to the cathedral 
were expected to send their offerings by the parish 
priest.^ Pentecostal farthings did not always fall to the 
bishop, but in some dioceses belonged to the cathedral.^ 
At Worcester the bishop received the pentecostals from 
the archdeaconry of Gloucester, while the sacristan of 
the cathedral received them from the archdeaconry of 
Worcester. Both in the diocesan register and in the 
valor of Henry VIII., the former amount is given as the 
definite sum of £5, 8 s." 

The clergy might agree to grant special taxes for any 
diocesan object, but the bishop could not impose them 

^ c. 16, X. I. xxi; Beg. Sede Vacante, 326. 

2 Beg. Sede Vacante, 133, 222, 435. The same figures are given 
in Henry VIII's valor. III. 219, 227. 

3 Lincoln Cathedral Statutes, pt. I, 307. 
^Giffard's Beg., 422. 

^ Wilkins, Concilia, II. 161. Lincoln Cathedral Statutes, pt. I. 
307. 

6 At Bath and Wells (Shrewsbury's Beg., 288). At AVinches- 
ter (Wykeham's Beq., 11. 410). 

'^ Beg. Sede Vacante, 435. Valor Ecc. Henry VIII, III. 219. 



61 

without papal license. A tax which was granted so fre- 
quently in the fourteenth century as to become almost a 
customary tax, was the aid voted to a new bishop to de- 
fray the expenses of his election. If the see was filled by 
papal provision, there was, besides the necessary 
presents, a heavy obligation to be discharged to the 
Papal Camara, amounting to at least a third of the taxed 
value of the see." If the bishop was elected, he was ex- 
pected toproceed to Rome within a month to seek papal 
confirmation." The election was seldom confirmed with 
out opposition and the delay was long and expensive. 
Piteous was the plight of Bishop Hethe of Roches- 
ter who waited two years at Avignon for his confirma- 
tion.^ In addition there was the expense consequ-ent 
upon consecration and enthronement. Moreover, the 
king enjoyed the temporalities of all sees during a 
vacancy and was entitled to the fruits of all land sown 
during that period, even if the temporalities were 
restored to the bishop before harvest. Consequently 
there was nothing on hand to meet these heavy ex- 
penses.^ The clergy of the diocese of Rochester taxed 

^ Bishop Grandisson, in trying to reduce the demands made 
upon him, offered to pay a third of the taxed value of his see 
proitt de antiqua consuetudine fuit per promotus apud Sedem 
Apostoliccmi lioctenus usitatum. Beg., 324. 

2 c. 16, in 6, I. VI. 

3 Wm. de Dene, Hisl. Boffensis, in Wharton, I. 361. 

^ Stapeldon wrote at the beginning of his episcopate: "I am 
destitute even to nakedness; the storehouses on the Episcopal 
Manors are empty and although the fields are clothed with 
crops, they were sown during the vacancy and belong to the 
king. The days are evil." Beg., 8. 

A bishop's income was very largely derived from his tempo- 
ralities. In Henry VIII's Valor, the bishop of Exeter's in- 
come from temporalities is estimated at £1411, 17 s., his income 
from spiritualities at £150, 10 s. (II. 289), and the proportion is 
about tlie same in the other dioceses. The Bishop of Bath and 
Wells requested Pope John XXII. to increase his income from 
spiritualities, as it amounted only to £20 annually. Reynolds, 
Wells Cathedral 161. 



62 

themselves twelve pence per mark to aid Bishop Hethe/ 
Bishop Kellawe of Durham and Bishop Shrewsburj^ of 
Bath and Wells were given a tenth for the j'ear follow- 
ing their consecration/ Bishop Grandisson was helped 
out by individual contributions . He wrote personally to 
the heads of religious houses explaining his financial 
difficulties, and ordered the archdeacons to call together 
their clergy and ask them to subscribe, "not as a body, 
but each one according to his ability."^ If there was 
danger that the clergy would refuse, the bishop armed 
himself with a papal privilege. In 1345, the pope granted 
an indult to demand "a charitable subsidy" from the 
clergy of their diocese to the bishops of Ely, Dur- 
ham and Winchester, all of whom he had just provided 
to their sees/ 

Finally, it ought to be stated that in different dioceses, 
by law or long established custom, the bishop received 
various payments. The bishop of Exeter, for 
example, received a tithe of tin, the bishop of Winches- 
ter possessed a half of the fruits of vacant benefices, and 
the bishop of Norwich was entitled to collect first 
fruits.^ 

1 William de Dene, Hist. Boffensis in Wharton, Anglia Sacra, 

I. 36. 

-Hist. Dunl. Scrip. Tres.,doc. No, 87; Shrewsbury's Reg,. 136. 
^ Grandisson's Beg., 355, 361. 

* Papal Letters, II. 189, 216. For other instances, see Ibid., 
213, 250, 252, 331. 
5 Stafford's Beq., 348; Wykeham's Beg., II. 8. Papal Letters, 

II. 18. 



CHAPTER IV. 
LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL WORK. 



The lawmaking power of the bishop was exercised 
with varying degrees of formality. When he learned 
npon visitation that his court needed reforming, he 
drew np statutes for its guidance and required the mem- 
bers to take an oath to obey them/ In the same 
way, when he discovered through visitation, or other- 
wise, that the cathedral, monasteries, or collegiate 
churches might be better administered, he sent a set of 
regulations to be observed. They consisted generally of 
rules to make the practice from day to day conform more 
nearly to the theory found in the general statutes of 
those churches or monasteries and did not affect their 
general organization.^ Statutes dealing with important 
matters relating to the constitution of the cathedral 
chapter were drawn up by bishop and chapter together/ 
At Wells, however, the bishop could make no statutes 
binding upon the cathedral without the consent of the 
chapter.'* 

Formal statutes regulating the churches throughout 
the diocese were usually published by the bishop in the 
diocesan synod. The synod was an assembly at which 
all the clergy of the diocese, including priors and abbots, 

1 Grandisson's Beg., 801, 808; Wilkins, Concilia, 495-497, 571-574- 

2 Grandisson's Beg., 1007, 1011, 1056, 1072, 1073; Wykeham's 
Beg., II. 472. 

^ Bronescombe's Beg., 76. 
* Reynolds, Wells Cathedral, p. c. III. 

(63) 



64 

were present in person or by proctors/ The old church 
councils directed that they should be held once or twice 
a year.^ References in later constitutions seem to indi- 
cate that they continued to be so held in most dioceses 
during the fourteenth century,' although strangely 
enough, the bishops' registers make almost no mention 
of them. The Winchester statutes of 1308 provided for 
an annual synod;** Bishop Kellawe's statutes for Durham 
called for two meetings a year, on the Monday after the 
feast of St. Michael and on the Monday after Easter, the 
absent to be canonically punished.^ At Ely, also, synods 
were held twice a year.^ According to the Sarum and 
Exeter pontificals the sessions lasted three days/ 

The purpose of the synod was to take into considera- 
tion all matters affecting the interests of the church. 
Taxes were levied for diocesan purposes or an aid granted 
to the bishop. The clergy made their complaints to him 
and he caused inquiries to be made and thus gave it 
the character of a general visitation. The following are 
some of the questions treated in Giffard's synod, held in 
1300. As to a pension paid to the abbot of Oseneye; 
as to the shutting up of nuns; whether Ralph de Vasto 
Prato, rector of the churches of Wythindon and Barely ve, 

^ Beg. Pal. Dun.. III. 573: Wilkins, Concilia. I., introduction, 
p. 7. Probably the clergy were largely present through proc- 
tors. Rectors appointed regular proctors to attend synods and 
rural decanal chapters for them. (Drokensford's JReg., 178). 

2 Wilkins, Concilia, I. 36.5. Council of AYinchester (1076), 

3 Ibid., II. 57. Statutes of Archbishop Peckbam (1281) quod 
Jurent decani Se fideliter facturos in Episcopali synodo omni 
anno; Lyndwood, Provinciale, 68. 

* Wilkins, Concilia, II. 301. 

3 Beg. Pal. Dun., III. 573. 

^ Jessopp, Hist. Mss. Comm. Beport, xii, pt. ix, p. 379. 

^ Maskell, JLonumenta Bitualia, I. 266-272. 



65 

ought to be deprived; regarding the chantries which the 
archdeacon of Gloucester writes are not yet dedicated; 
whether it were better to satisfy the bishop of Llandaff 
for his expenses in coming to Gloucester/ 

The consent of the clergy to the bishop's statutes was 
not asked. They were published, lectae et puhlicatae, 
in the synod because in that way they could directly 
reach all the clergy and doubtful points could be ex- 
plained by the bishop to those who did not understand. 
They might cover a great many subjects, from the regu- 
lation of the rites of baptism and confirmation to order- 
ing that the parishioners should stay quietly in church 
until the service was ended instead of collecting in noisy 
groups in the churchyard.^ Bishop QuiviFs statutes 
(1287) contained fifty-five chapters.^ They related to 
the administration of the sacraments and sacred offices 
of the church, the conduct of the clergy, the care of 
church property, the punishment of crimes; in brief, they 
covered the whole range of subjects under the supervis- 
ion of the bishop and were considered so important that 
every church was required to have a copy in its posses- 
sion.^ Nothing could be decreed contrary to the canon 
law or the constitutions of the archbishop. In fact, the 
statutes were largely a restatement of provincial consti- 
tutions with slight variations at times to conform to 
local custom. 

The position of the bishop in the provincial convoca- 
tion was exactly like that of a rector in the diocesan 
synod. He was compelled to attend in person or by 
proctor, took part in voting tenths, in addressing peti- 



^Giflard's Beg., 514-517. 

2 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 184, Statutes of bishop of Chichester. 

^Ibid. , II. 129-168. 



* Stapeldon's Beg., 581. 



tions and remonstrances to the king, and in discussing 
all matters that came up in convocation; but in drawing 
up the provincial scatutes he had no part. They were 
the work of the archbishop and were merelj^ promul- 
gated, not voted upon, in convocation. If a bishop's 
advice was asked in connection therewith, it was because 
the archbishop desired it, not because he was compelled 
to consider it." 

Org-anization of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The 
judicial work of the bishop was rendered more complex 
in that he was both a priest and a ruler of a diocese. 
The spiritual welfare of men, as well as the maintenance 
of law and justice, was an end which he kept constantly 
in view. So a crime had a twofold aspect; it was a sin 
which endangered the soul of the offender, unless he 
were brought to expiate it with a penitent heart, and also 
a defiance of established authority and punishable as 
such. Accordingly the canon law recognized two tri- 
bunals, the forum internum, or forum conscientiae, and 
the forum externum. While the latter corresponded to 
the courts of the political state, breakers of the law be- 
ing brought before it whether they chose or not, the 
forum conscientiae operated through the confessional and 
could not reach the offender unless he repented and vol- 
untarily came before it for sentence. It addressed itself 
to the conscience and with it all transgression was sin 
against God.^ 

In the foncm internum, for those actions which were 
relatively insignificant the parish priests were the con- 
fessors, but those of public scandal or of a serious nature 
came under the cognizance of the bishop or his deputies, 

1 Lyndwood Provinciate, 32. 

2 SaDti. Praelectiones Juris Canonici, I. 339-341. 



67 

unless reserved to the pope. A definite list of cases re- 
served to the Holy See was not settled by pope or coun- 
cil, and the number varied from time to time." By de- 
cree of the second Latern Council (1139) any one who, 
at the instigation of the devil, laid violent hands on any 
clerk, hecRine 12)80 facto excommunicated and could only 
receive absolution from the pope.^ In practice, however, if 
the assault was slight the bishop disposed of the matter.^ 
In the Exeter synod of 1287, Bishop Quivil enumerated 
twenty offenses which required absolution by the pope. 
Among- them were assault on clerks, arson, destruction 
of ecclesiastical property, usury and simony. "* But to 
go to Rome was out of the question with many offenders, 
so that in case of sickness, old age, penurj^, danger, or 
any reasonable impediment the bishop was allowed to 
grant absolution, on condition that when the impedi- 
ment was removed the journey to Rome would be under- 
taken. = Moreover, when the pope or the papal legate 
granted absolution, he very frequently handed the cul- 
prit over to the bishop to prescribe for him salutary pen- 
ance.* Again, popes issued to bishops, as a mark of 
favor, bulls authorizing them to grant a certain number 
of absolutions for offenses not otherwise within their 
power. ^ Thus, the papal cases were, to a large extent, 
in the hands of the bishops. Outside of the papal cases, 
the field that a bishop reserved for himself was a matter 



1 Lea, Hist, of Confession and Indulgences, I. 321-325. 

2 c. 29, C. XVII. qu. 4. Si quis suadente diabole. 
^Grandisson's Beg., 712; Beg. Pal. Dun., I. 481. 
^ V^^ilkins, Concilia, II. 166. 

5 Grandisson's Beg., 441, 484, 526. 

^Lea, Formulary of the Papal Penitentiarg, 89, 90, 100, et 
passim. 

"^ Grandisson's Beg., 139. 



for Ms own determination." Accordingly it varied 
greatly in extent, an easy going prelate reserved little, 
while an over zealous bishop left almost nothing for the 
parish priests.- 

It was impossible for the bishop to hear all who de- 
sired to confess to him and a penitentiary- general was 
appointed in each diocese. At Exeter he was the sub- 
dean of the cathedral, an arrangement made by Bishop 
Quivil in 1284 when, with the consent of the chapter, 
he endowed the offi.ce of subdean and provided that he 
who held it should be the bishop's penitentiary-general 
and go through the diocese once a year and abolve those 
who were unablfe to come to Exeter.^ In addition, to 
supplement the wofk of both the penitentiary- general 
and the parish priests, two or more penitentiaries were 
licensed in each archdeaconry. Ordinarih' they had cog- 
nizance of certain of the reserved cases while the bishops 
kept the remainder in their own hands. ^ Grandisson 
more than once found that his penitentiaries, que sua 
sunt pocius quam Jhesii Christi querentes, were exceeding 
their powers and was forced to revoke their commissions 
and appoint others.^ 

Directly after the organization of their orders, the 
friars were privileged by the pope to hear confessions. 
Such an invasion of the jurisdiction of the secular 
clergy was opposed by the bishops, and a struggle ensued 
which resulted in the compromise of Clement V. by 
which the friars were required to obtain licenses from 
the bishops, and were prevented from hearing epis- 
copal cases, unless especially authorized.^ The regis- 

^ Lea, Hist. Confession and Indulgences, I. 313-315. 
^ Bronescombe'si^eg., 324. 

^Stapeldon's Beg., 144; Grandisson's Beg., 558, 1144; Wyke- 
ham's Beg., 11. 362. 

^ Grandisson's Beg., 557, 780, 1135. 

^ C. 2, Clem. V. lii. v., Super cathedram. 



69 

ters contain an annual list of licenses granted to 
friars, and from time to time monitions against those 
hearing confessions without troubling to obtain them." 
On account of their wandering life and papal privileges, 
the bishop could control the friars but little and this 
power of theirs was bitterly resented. His feeling is ex- 
pressed by Matthew Paris when he complains that the 
people could say: "Let us do what we please; some one 
or other of the preaching brothers will pass this way 
— one whom we never saw before and never shall see 
again. To him, when we have done what we will, we 
can confess without trouble and annoyance." For each 
deanery the bishop also appointed penitentiaries to hear 
the confessions of the local clergy.^ Noblemen and im- 
portant ecclesiastics often confessed to the bishop him- 
self.^ In 1313 Bishop Drokensford admonished all 
rectors, regulars, and lay nobles to come to him once a 
year to reveal their soul's state. '^ Numerous licenses were 
granted to noblemen or other influential persons by 
pope and bishops allowing them to choose their own 
confessor.^ Altogether, the penitential system was 
so well organized that, aside from his control over papal 
cases, the bishop's work lay rather in overseeing the 
conduct of his deputies than in hearing any large number 
of confessions himself. The penance imposed after con- 
fession did not differ in any way from that which fol- 
lowed conviction in the forum externum. 

When a judicial tribunal administered a system of law 



1 Grandisson's Beg., 1108, 1128. 

^Stapeldon's Beg., 113-114,- Grandisson's Beg., 1146. 

^ Lea, Hist. Confession and Indulgences, I. 230. 

^ Drokensford's Beg., 151. 

^ Papal Letters, II. 404, et passim; Grandisson's Beg., 553. 



70 

of its own, and its competence extended to so many per- 
sons and covered so many cases as did that of the 
mediaeval court Christian, the work of the bishop in the 
forum ea^^eniMm was necessarily very important. As in 
the consideration of the administrative activity of the 
bishop, attention will first be given to the persons or 
judicial machinery through which the work was carried 
on. 

The bishop's principal organ for the administration of 
justice was the consistory court. It held regular ses- 
sions once a month or every three weeks." How long 
they ordinarily lasted no records are available to deter- 
mine, but at Exeter it was complained to the bishop that 
the officials of the archdeacon left after the fourth day, 
before the business of the consistory was finished.^ Some 
part of the cathedral buildings was set apart for the use 
of the court, and there for the most part the sessions 
were held, but at times they took place in different parts 
of the diocese.^ In the diocese of Worcester, four 
regularly constituted consistory courts were conducted 
by the official, each having separate rolls and registers, 
namely, at Worcester, Gloucester, Warwick and Bristol."^ 
But more often there was one court which to a certain 
extent was itinerant. In 1293, Archbishop Peckham 
ordered the official of the bishop of Hereford to hold 
consistories only at Hereford, Ludlow, Monmouth, or 
Ross, as the people were greatly inconvenienced by 
having to attend in out of the way places.^ 

The judge of the court was the bishop's official. The 

1 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 148, 699. 

2 Stapeldon's Beg., 119. 

3 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 699. 
* Reg. Sede Vacante, 138. 

5 Peckham' s Reg., 1073. 



71 

official had risen to his present important position dur- 
ing the thirteenth century, when, on one hand, the in- 
creasing use of civil law procedure in the ecclesiastical 
courts rendered necessary a judge who was a trained 
lawyer, and, on the other, the archdeacon, due to the 
independent position he had usurped and the jealousy 
felt by the bishop toward him, was no longer eligi- 
ble. Some permanent assistant the bishop had to 
have and the official stepped in to fill the gap. He was 
appointed by the bishop to serve during pleasure," and 
was often, but not always, a canon of the cathedral.^ 
The most important qualification was that he should be 
well trained in the law.^ The bishop also appointed during 
pleasure at least one judge delegate, who held con- 
sistory in the official's absence. He was designated by 
various titles, commissary general of the bishop, com- 
missary of the consistory, or commissary of the bishop's 
official.^ Bishop Burghersh of Lincoln drew up some 
statutes for the regulation of his consistory in 1334, in 
Avhich he decreed that the official was to be present at 
each session unless prevented by reasonable cause. ^ But 
Bishop Grandisson provided that his official propter ex- 
cellenciam sui oficii et persona should take cognizance 
onlv of the more serious crimes and offenses.^ In his 



1 Drokensford's Beg., 216; Wykeham's Beg., II. 265. 

^ Drokensford's Beg., 314; Grandisson's Beg., 481; Sandale's 
Beg., 28. 

3 Drokensford's Beg., 216; Wykeham's Beg., II. 265; Fournier, 
Les officialites, 18. 

i^ There was one at Exeter, mentioned as commissary of the offi- 
cial by Stapeldon {Beg., 116), called both commissary-general 
of the bishop and commissary of the consistory by Grandisson 
(Beg., 494,693). 

5 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 571. 

^Grandisson's i^eg., 808. 



72 

absence the commissary was to hear cases. According to 
the statutes of Bishop Kellawe, issued in 1312, a com- 
missary was to reside at Durham and, in the absence of 
the ofi&cial, judge minor cases and others where haste 
was necessary/ The official differed from other judges 
appointed by the bishop in that while they were judges 
delegate, he was judge ordinary, that is, his decision 
stood for the bishop's decision and appeal from it went 
to the archbishop/ 

All ecclesiastical courts contained a number of trained 
advocates similar to the advocates of the civil law. A 
thorough legal knowledge was required for the office. 
Archbishop Peckham (1281) proclaimed that no one 
could be an advocate unless he had studied the canon 
and civil law for three years. ^ However, in the consist- 
ory courts the time was regularly longer, at least the 
jS.ve years required by the civil law."* At Lincoln the 
advocate had to have studied six years and been present 
at the pleading of cases one year before he could be 
licensed.^ There, and probably elsewhere, he was re- 
quired to wear a long gown, or ejntogia, to distinguish 
him from the other members of the court. ^ Archbishops 
and bishops felt it necessary to limit the number in their 
courts. The Lincoln statutes fixed it at fourteen unless, 
there was special need for increasing it at any time.'' 

1 Beg. Fed. Dun., III. 580. 

2 c. 3, in 6, n. xv., Lyndwood, ProvinciaJe, 105. In Kellawe' s 
register is given a letter of appeal from a judgment of the com- 
missary of the of&cial (Beg. Pal. Pun., 85). 

3 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 61. 

^ Lyndwood, Provinciale, 77. 
s Wilkins, Concilia, II. 573. 
^Ihid., 5T2. 

'' Ibid. At Canterbury the number was limited to sixteen, 
{Ibid., 205), at York to twelve, {Ibid., 410). 



73 

Within the statute limit the number varied in the same 
court from time to time, as the witnesses testified to 
Bishop Stapeldon on his visitation of his consistory in 
1323/ Bishops could, and did, appoint them in excess 
of the number allowed in their ordinances/ 

The principal duties of the advocate were to draw up 
all the important papers in the conduct of a case, to ex- 
amine the process of a trial entered on the register and 
order the correction of any errors, and to plead the 
causes of clients before the judge/ Upon admission 
they took an oath to discharge faithfully their duty, not 
to argue any case which seemed to them unjust, or use 
any but honest means to win a suit/ Archbishops and 
bishops endeavored by statutory enactments to lessen 
the confusion the advocates created in court by inter- 
rupting each other and all talking at once. The Synod 
of Canterbury (1295) authorized suspension of advocatos 
et procuratores garrulos.^ In Bishop Beaumont's stat- 
utes we read: "We prohibit advocates and proctors 
from making a tumult in the consistory while the official 
or his commissary is present; but in addressing him or 
in speaking we require them to show him proper respect; 
and when one is speaking the others are to keep silent 
and each speak in turn as is fitting/'^ 

^ Stapeldon' s Beg., 118. 

^Grandisson appointed an advocate in 1328, and another in 
1332 non obstante statuto de certo advocatorum numero. 

^ Wilkins, Concilia, 572-3; Fournier, Les officialites, 32-35. 

""Beg. Pal Dun., III. 579; Wilkins, Concilia, 11. 572 

5 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 206. 

^ Ibid., 496. The conditions legislated against in these stat- 
xites are just what Stapeldon was informed existed in his court. 
Advocates "do not treat with fitting respect either the judge or 
their associates, but interrupt the speeches of their associates, 
:and are garrulous oftentimes and quarrel disgracefully, and 
this is true of all advocates.'' {Beg., 117). 



74 

In earlier times parties were accustomed to manage 
their own suits in the ecclesiastical courts, but as the 
procedure grew more technical they became increasingly 
incompetent to do this and adopted the practice of hand- 
ing them over to trained lawyers, or proctors. In order 
to lessen confusion and establish a certain standard of 
efficiency, bishops came to prohibit any proctors in their 
courts without their special license. Accordingly, con- 
nected with each consistory in the fourteenth century was 
a body of proctors licensed by the bishop and hired by 
litigants to have charge of their cases. They had to 
possess legal trainiug. At Lincoln a four years' course 
in the civil and canon law was necessary." The office of 
proctor appears to have been commonly an intermediate 
step to that of advocate; three out of nine proctors of 
the Exeter court in 1323 were expecting to become ad- 
vocates.^ Their number, also, was limited by law.^ A 
person could, and did, employ several proctors for one 
suit. Archbishop Winchelesey in order to prevent one 
side stealing a march on the other and hiring all the 
proctors in his court of Arches, ordered that each side 
should be contented with two.^ 

The relation between proctors and advocates was 
similar to that which exists betweenattorneys and barris- 
ters in England at the present time. The proctors sup- 
plied the advocate with all necessary documents and infor- 
mation, and consulted with him regarding the conduct of 
their cases. They were strictly prohibited from en- 
croaching upon his powers by independently drawing up 
charges and other official papers, or by pleading suits. ^ 

1 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 572. 

2 Stapeldon's Beg., 116. 

^ Ibid. Sixteen was the limit at Lincoln (Wilkins, II. 572). 
* Wilkins, Concilia, 11. 206. 
^ Ibid., 11. 206, 411, 495, 572. 



75 

Like the advocates they took an oath upon receivings 
their license, an important sentence of this being that 
they would not desert clients in the midst of a suit." Ad- 
vocates and proctors were almost always in minor orders. 
A priest was forbidden to act as either, unless in a case 
involving himself, or his church, or the lord in whose 
house he served, or, finally, the poor/ In all such cases he 
served without pay. Although both advocates and proc- 
tors were paid by their clients, bishops interfered if they 
thought extortionate charges had been made ^ 

A fourth necessary official of the EnglisJi consistory 
was the examiner/ As the name indicates, he took the 
testimony of witnesses. They were not interrogated in 
the open court, but the judge handed a list of questions. 
articuU, to the examiners, who then took the testimony 
in private. This was recorded in full by their clerks, 
and the written document presented to the judge. ^ 

1 Wilkin s, Concilia, II. 572. 

2 Ibid.:; I. 674; II. 205; Fournier, Les officialiies, 33. 

^ Tho archbishop of York went further and in 1311 fixed a 
schedule of fees. (Wilkins, II. 410.) 

•* Fournier does not mention examiners for France. There 
the witnesses brought to court were examined by the judge or, 
especially in the north of France, by a notary {Les officialites, 
188, 189). 

In France it was customary for the official to ask the advice 
of one or more trained lawyers before deciding important cases. 
These assessores were often advocates in the consistory. He 
was not bound to follow their advice {Ibid., 25, 26). This does 
not seem to have been the regular practice in England. There 
is a mention of such assessores in Winchelesey's statutes (1295) 
but it does not appear to refer to a general custom: partes viros 
sapientes, providos, et fideles, non tamen advocatos curiae vel 
ministros procurare valeant, ut gratis, . . . assideant, judici 
sanum consilium justum et fidele daturi, cum ajudice fuerint re- 
quisiti (Wilkins, II. 207). 

5 Stapeldon's Beg., 117-119. 



76 

There were two examiners in the Exeter court, and it 
was a rule of the York and Durham consistories that 
they should never have more than that number/ 

Other members of the courts were the registrar and 
one or more notaries. The registrar was expected to be 
present at all sessions and take down all proceedings. 
When unable to do this, a notary took his place. ^ 
The citations of the court were in part directed to the 
archdeacon to be served, in part served by an official 
called the apparitor- general. This official was appoint- 
ed by the bishop to serve during pleasure.^ It was an 

« 

unpopular office; on one occasion the apparitor of the 
bishop of Winchester was seized by a mob while dis- 
charging his duty and beaten to death ; at another time 
the apparitor of the bishop of Worcester was attacked 
and barely escaped with his life.'^ 

Such was the organization of the consistory.^ In it 
most of the routine judicial work was done and many 
important cases decided. The account of Bishop Sta- 
peldon's visitation of his court gives interesting informa- 
tion regarding the shortcomings of the various mem- 
bers. We learn that cases dragged along and decisions 
were delayed through the fault of the advocates and 
proctors. The examiners refused to take the testimony 
of witnesses until they had collected their fees, and then 
instead of asking each ciuestion separately, examined 
them upon several articuli at once. Some of them were 

1 StapeUon'S Beg., 116; Wilkins, Concilia, II. 409, 496. 

2 Beg. Pal. Bun., I. 580; Grandisson's Beg., 808. 

3 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 678. 

^ Wykeham'si^eg., II. 678; Beg. Sede Vacante, 211. 

5 The consistory cited to Stapeldon's visitation (1323) con- 
tained three advocates, nine proctors, two examiners, the clerk 
of the examiners, the registrar, a notary public, an apparitor, 
and nine students. 



77 

married, and at times examined witnesses at their 
homes. Two of the proctors were tavern keepers, and 
one of them frequented taverns "to the scandal of the 
ofiice/' ' 

Much important judicial work was done outside the 
consistory. Both the official and his commissaries-gen- 
eral decided causes pro tribunali sedente, that is, in the 
presence of witnesses and a notary, at the bishop's 
manor house or elsewhere in the diocese, independently 
of the consistory court. ^ Moreover, as in administrative 
matters every one of the bishop's tasks was handed over 
at times to commissioners, so in the judicial field he 
delegated a considerable part of his work to them. In 
most dioceses there was more business than the official 
and his commissary could manage. The bishop accord- 
ingly appointed during pleasure two or three commissa- 
ries to hear cases generally throughout the [diocese, 
in consistory or without.^ As in case of the commissary 
of the official, appeal lay from their decisions to the 
bishop, and they differed from him only in that they 
worked under the direction of the bishop while he worked 
under the direction of the official. Again commissions 
were issued for the adjudication of a specified case. 
They were frequently addressed to the official, or a com- 
missary, or both, together with one or more of the can- 
ons."* The position of the official in such cases was dif- 

1 Stapeldon's Beg., 117-119. 

^Grandisson's jReg., 916; Beg. Pal. Dun., 579. 

^ Beg. Sede Vacante, 81; Giffard's Beg., 489; Grandisson's 
Beg., 728; Beg. Pal. Bun., 21. 

* Grandisson's i^eg., 478, 734; Drokensford i^eg , 113, 213; Beg. 
Pal. Dun., 335, 1217. According to the legatine statutes of 
Cardinal Othobon, no one having a lower dignity than canon of 
the cathedral should be authorized to act as judge (Wilkins, 
Concilia, II. 11). 



78 

ferent from his position in the consistory, for he was 
not sole judge. At other times commissions were issued 
in which no judicial official whatever was appointed." 
Bishop Grandisson issued a great many commissions 
during the first years of his episcopate, but in his sixth 
year, realizing that he was injuring the business of the 
consistory court, he revoked all except those of his 
official, official of peculiar jurisdiction, and commissary 
of the consistory.^ He had empowered his official of 
paculiar jurisdiction to hear causes throughout the whole 
diocese, quia tamen, sicut docuit experiencia, ex hoc con- 
sistorii nostri Generalis detrahitur non mediocriter jtiris- 
diccione et Jionore quos desideramus augeri; nostre inten- 
cionis existet quod cause Jmjus modi . . audiantur de 
cetero et decidantiir in dicto consistorio nostro. He now 
commanded him to transfer all matters pending before 
him to the consistory.^ 

At any time the bishop might take a suit out of the 
consistory court and decide it himself or put it into the 
hands of a commission. Similarly he might transfer 
a suit from one set of commissioners to another. Grandis- 
son, in July, 1333, authorized the treasurer of Exe- 
ter to hear and decide a case of divorce in nostro consis- 
torio Exoniensi dudum motani et demum ad audienciam 
nostram revocatam. January 8, 1334, the matter was 
still undecided, and the bishop gave it to other commis- 
sioners. "^ Again in October, 1338, he commissioned 
Stephen Lovecoke, an examiner of the consistory, Wal- 
ter de Wike, an advocate of the same, and William 

1 Grandisson's i?e^., 456, 470, 482, 701; Drokensford's Beg., 07, 
200, 216. 
2j&id.,693. 
^Ihid., 728. 
4 Ibid.. 701, 727. 



79 

de Were, a clerk, to try a case of defamation between a 
certain tanner of Exeter and a vicar in the church of 
Exeter, which had been appealed to the consistory. 
March 12, 1329, having conckided that the commission- 
ers wers too dilator}-, he transferred the suit to the hear- 
ing of the dean and precentor of Exeter/ An appeal 
of the rector of Marksbnry against the official of the 
archdeacon of Bath was transferred by Bishop Drokens- 
ford in succession to three different sets of commis- 
sioners/ 

Finally it must be remembered that full power to dis- 
pense justice resided in the person of the bishop at all 
times, as it did in the person of the king. So although 
he did not hold consistory himself, still in his manor 
house, pro trihunali sedente, on his journeys, or in visi- 
tation, in short, at any time or place, he decided cases, 
his action being certified to by the notrarj^ public who 
always accompanied him, and by witnesses from his own 
train, or the people among whom he chanced to be.^ 
Citations to appear before him iihicumque tunc fuerwius 
in nostra civitate vel Diocesi were exceedingh' common."* 
The suffragans of Canterbury (1282) presented a list of 
twenty- one grievances to Archbishop Peckham which 
they asked him to remedy. The fifteenth complaint was 
that the court of Canterbury issued rescripts upon 
appeal that a bishop cited to an uncertain place, namely, 
wherever he might be in his diocese, whereas that right 
belonged to the bishops as ordinaries, and had heretofore 
been customary. They prayed that such rescripts would 

1 Grandisson's Beg., 420, 475. 

- Drokensford's Beg., 200. 204. 216. 

3 Grandisson's Beg., 870, 894. 

^ Ibid., 4:^3, 482, 477; Sandale's i?eg., 28, 29, 32. 



80 

cease.' The petitions made by the commons in parlia- 
ment against the operations of the spiritual courts re- 
lated not infrequently to the uncertainty as to time and 
place of holding court, and the inconvenience resulting 
from the existence of several judges with overlapping 
jurisdictions. They complained that they were cited to 
distant and unheard of places, and were excommunicated 
when they did not get there within the time allowed;^ 
also that thej' received citations from different judges 
to appear before them at different places on the same 
day.^ An illustration of the second grievance drawn 
from another source, is the appeal to the pope of a cer- 
tain Thomas Page who declared he was cited to three 
places distant from one another on the same day, and when 
he appeared at one, the other two commissaries excom- 
municated him, and he was afterward put in the civil 
prison where he suffered hunger, cold and thirst for a 
3^ear, when he escaped. "* Fournier has remarked that 
the ecclesiastical judicial system was the result of im- 
posing the civil code upon the earlier personal and pa- 
ternal government of the church.^ That idea helps to 
explain the judicial organization just described. On 
the one hand, a court with advocates, proctors and a 
formal procedure similar to that of the civil law, on the 
other, the personal authority of the bishop who could 
and did step in at any time and transfer causes to other 
judges or to his personal hearing. 

In each archdeaconry was a court modeled after the 

^Peckham's Beg., I. 331. Strangely enough the seventeenth 
complaint was that the archbishop cited them in the same way. 
He was not slow in pointing out to them their inconsistency. 

2 Bot. Pari, II. 171a, III. 163b. 

^Ibid., III. 43b. 

^ Papal Letters, II. 537. 

^ Fournier, Les officialites, 129-131. 



81 

consistory which held sittings once a month or every 
three weeks/ Every archdeacon had an official, and at 
times a commissary of the official. His court also con- 
tained advocates, proctors and a registrar/ The appari- 
tors of the archdeacons were everywhere hated by the 
clergy. Bishop Quivil, in 1287, denounced the damna- 
Mlis apparitorum praesumptio who cited people for crimes 
on their own initiative in order to extort money from 
them.^ In 1341, Archbishop Stratford, on account of 
the apparitorum tiirha pestifera decreed that each arch- 
deacon should have one only in each deanery who should 
travel about on foot and not on horseback.^ Chaucer in 
the Friar's Tale has described for us the popular hatred 
of the apparitor. The archdeacon 

. hadde a Sumnour redy to his hond 
A slyer boy was noon in Englelond 
For oubtilly he hadde his espiaille 
That taught him where that him mighte availle. 

:^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 

This false theef, this Sumnour, quod the Frere. 

Had alwey baudes redy to his hond 

As any hank to lure in Englelond, 

That told him al the secree that they knewe ; 
Decisions of the archdeacon or his official could be ap- 
pealed to the bishop's consistory. Except in the archdea- 
conries of Richmond and Chester,^ the English archdea- 

^ Wilkins, Concilia, II. 699. 
2 Grandisson's Beg., 1041. 

3 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 148. 

4 Ibid. II. 678. The bishop of Salisbury (1254), upon com- 
plaint of the clergy that apparitors rode around through the 
rural deaneries on horseback, and demanded sumptiosa, not eon- 
tent with common hospitality, ordered them to go on foot. 
{lUd., I. 716.) 

^ See ante, p. 6. 



82 

cons did not usurp power at the expense of tlie bishop, 
as they did in some dioceses in France where their de- 
cisions became of equal authority with his, and appeal 
went directly to the archbishop/ In some dioceses the 
bishops reserved to themselves certain classes of cases 
which the archdeacons were forbidden to entertain . At 
Winchester, according to the constitutions of Bishop 
Woodlock, the archdeacons could not hear matrimonial 
or testamentary suits, or any suit, civil or criminal, 
which involved deposition or deprivation of a benefice.'' 
This was probably a larger reservation than obtained in 
most dioceses. In the diocese of Bath and Wells a suit 
could be begun indifferently in either the consistory or 
the archdeacon's court, and both could proceed equally 
against offenders.^ As a matter of fact minor cases, 

1 Fournier, 134, 135. 

- Inliibemus ne arcliidiacani, officialese aut decani eorundem 
causas matrimoniales, testamentarias aut criminales seu civiles 
quae ad depositionem seu heneUcii privationem, sive criminaliter sive 
civiUter ineisdem aut quasvis alias ad cognitionem nosiram spectan- 
tes tractare praesumant. (Wilkins, II. 299). 

Cardinal Otho's constitutions prohibited them from hearing 
matrimonial cases unless it was a long established custom, and 
in that case they were to consult the bishop before pronouncing 
sentence. (Ibid., I. 651). 

^ Agreement between the bishop and archdeacon of Wells 
(1338). Actors adversarium suum de arcliidiaconatu predicto 
coram domino archidiacano vel ministris suis in causam trahere 
volente habeant idem archidiacanus et ministri sui hujus causae 
cognicionem et definitionem . . . et si quis quospiam de archidia 
conatu predicto coram prefato domino episcopo vel ministris suis in 
causam trahere voluit habeant idem episcopus et ministrii sui hujus 
causae cognicionem et definicionem . . . ita tamen quod sub- 
diti archiaconatus predicti extra ipsum archidiaconatum nisi de 
eonsenu utriusque partis . . . nullatenus trahantur. 

This document was kindly copied for me from Shrewsbury's 
manuscript register by Canon Holmes. 



83 

although not these alone, would fall to the archdeacon, 
and his court was often looked upon as a place of petty 
persecutions. As we read in Chaucer: 

For smale tythes and for smale offrynge, 
He made the peeple pitously to synge 
For er the bisschop caught hem in his hook. 
They weren in the archedekenes book ; 
And hadde through his jurediccioun 
Power to have of hem correccioun. 

There were in most, and probably in all, dioceses pe- 
culiar jurisdictions exempt altogether or in part from 
the ordinary courts. The bishop of Exeter had peculiar 
jurisdiction over the collegiate church of Crediton and 
over the rural deaneries of St. Germain, Penryn and 
Poltone in Cornwall.' He appointed one or more officials 
to try all cases that arose among the people of those 
places ; ^ the archdeacon had no authority whatever over 
them and the consistory only by way of appeal.^ The 
cathedral chapters had peculiar jurisdictions varying in 
character and extent in different dioceses. Bishop and 
chapter originally held their property in common and its 
division between them at a later period gave rise to a 
great variety of peculiars. In the dioceses of London, 
Lincoln, Chichester, Salisbury and Wells the dean had 
jurisdiction over the canons, their prebends, and all 
prebendal churches and the bishops could not interfere 



^Bronscombe's Beg., 465, 466. 

2 Stapeldon's Beg., 116; Grandisson's Beg., 777-779. 

^ Grandisson's i?e(7., 535. Mandate to the official or his com- 
missary: vohis et vestrum utrique districcius inhibenius Jurisdic- 
cioni nostre Peculiar i ibidem [Crediton], aut alibi prejudicetis om- 
nino nee quicquam attemptatis de cetero nisi per viam appeilacionis 
tantum, prout de jure et consuetudine fuit et est hoctenus usitatum. 



84 

except in case of negligence or appeal." Moreover, at 
Salisbury, Wells and Lichfield the dean exercised arch- 
deaconal jurisdiction over the cathedral city and its sub- 
urbs.^ Finally, the dean of Wells, and perhaps other 
deans also, had jurisdiction over certain parishes. They 
were thirteen in number and had been granted to the 
cathedral by one of the early bishops.^ He appealed to 
the archbishop in 1342 because Bishop Shrewsbury had 
cited the parishioners of some of these churches to ap- 
pear and answer for certain crimes and offenses.'^ He 
had a court with an official, registrar and apparitor, 
appeal from it going to the bishop.^ 

The jurisdiction enjoyed by royal chapels and certain 
monasteries gave rise to other important peculiars. From 
Saxon times Glastonbury Abbey, for example, possessed 
complete jurisdiction, not only over its own members, 
but also over seven parishes.^ The nature of this may 
be seen from the following appeal to the pope against 
Bishop Shrewsburj^: "Although all primary and im- 
mediate ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the clergy within 
the parishes of St. John, Glaston, . . . and other 

^ Reynolds, Wells Cathedral, p. clxi. A document is here 
copied from the Lichfield Liber Niger which gives the jurisdic- 
tion of the different cathedral deans. The statement is prac- 
tically the same for all the above mentioned deans, that for 
Sarum being as follows: Apud Sarum ita est optentum quod 
Decanus hahet omnimodam jurisdiccionem tarn m persoms canon- 
icorumet omnium in chore quam inprebendis et ecclesiis pertinenti- 
bus ad communam nee episcopus in aliquo supra premissis se in- 
tromittit nisi per viam negligencie vel appellacionis. 

2 Reynolds, Wells Cathedral, 139; Lincoln Cathedral Statutes, 

pt, II. p. CLVIII. 

^ Reynolds, Wells Cathedral, p. CXL. 
^ Shrewsbury's Beg., 447. 
^ Reynolds, Wells Cathedral, p. CL. 
« Ibid., p. cxxxix. 



85 

persons living in the said parishes from olden time has 
pertained to the abbot and convent of Glaston, institu- 
tions and ordinations of clerks excepted, and the said 
religions men by their archdeacons, officials, commis- 
saries and ministers have been the sole keepers of the 
jurisdiction aforesaid, nevertheless Thomas Chyw . 
minister of Ralph, bishop of Bath and Wells, notwith- 
standing an appeal, cited Walter de Spekynton, parish- 
ioner of St. John Glaston, and personally apprehended 
within the said parish, to appear before the said father 
or his commissary at Banewell." ' Mandates which the 
bishop wished to be published throughout the diocese 
were addressed to the three archdeacons and the ' 'keeper 
of the jurisdiction of Glastonbury."^ 

Competence of the Eeelesiastical Courts. — The 
competence of the ecclesiastical courts covered a broad 
field. The general claim was that all questions which 
concerned clerks or whose subject matter was of a spirit- 
ual nature belonged to the courts Christian. But by 
the fourteened century that position had, in practice, 
been surrendered at some points; over some questions a 
struggle w^as still going on with the civil power. The 
adjustment arrived at between the two jurisdictions in 
this period is given in the statutes Circumspecte Agatis 
(1285 probably) and ArticiUi Gleri (1316).^ Omitting 
certain obviously spiritual matters, as the conduct of 
church services, doctrine, heresy, and the like, questions 
that could hardly be entertained elsewhere than in eccle- 
siastical courts, the competence of the court Christian 
extended to the following classes of causes. 



2 Ibid. , 149. 

^ Statutes of the Bealm, I. 101, 171-174. The able discussion 
of this subject in Pollock and Maitland's English Law leaves 
little to be added. 



86 

In the first place, controversies regarding churches 
and church revenues, with one important exception, 
came under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. 
A dispute over the advowson of a church was decided in 
the lay courts." In other cases the bishop was free to 
act unmolested by a royal inhibition. The causes that 
came most frequently into the courts were controversies 
over tithes and other payments. In the mediaeval 
church economy there was little dependence upon volun- 
tary payments. The tithes of parishioners and dues 
owing from any living were fixed by law or custom down 
to the minutest detail, and thus defaulters could easily 
be brought to task. Moreover, the revenues of a parish 
were divided among so many persons that trouble was 
almost inevitable. Pensions were attached to many liv- 
ings, and the possessor of the living not uncommonly 
neglected to pay, whereupon suit was brought before 
the archdeacon or the bishop. The appropriation of 
churches and complicated arrangements made regarding 
the division of tithes between the vicar and the posses- 
sors of the church gave rise to frequent litigation.^ 
Again, a rector or a vicar sued to recover a mortuary 
fee, or to force a parishioner to give the second best ani- 
mal when he was endeavoring to satisfy the church with 
the third best.^ A retiring rector or canon was expected 
to make good any dilapidation that had occurred to the 
benefice or prebend during his incumbency, and if he 
refused to do so, or to the extent demanded by his suc- 
cessor, he could be sued in court. ^ Tithes, as might be 



^ Pollock and Maitland, English Law. I. 105. 
^Beg. Pal. Dun,, 1217; Grandisson's Reg., 370, 716; Wyke- 
ham'sli^eg., II. 553. 
3 Grandisson's Reg., 397, -440; Swinfleld's Roll, p. cxxvm. 
^ Drokensford's Reg., 162. 



87 

expected, were oftentimes difficult to collect, and the 
attempt brought the court Christian into frequent diffi- 
culty with the secular courts. The clergy complained 
to the king in parliament that suits for their recovery 
were begun in the latter on the pretext that it was a suit 
concerning goods and chattels, and also that persons 
prosecuting suits for tithes in the ecclesiastical court 
were later indicted before secular judges and grievously 
oppressed." 

In the second place, the ecclesiastical courts held juris- 
diction over testamentary matters; they were the pro- 
bate courts of the time. Consequently the probate of 
wills formed a large part of the business of both the 
episcopal and archdeaconal courts. The bishop of Exe- 
ter (and probably all bishops) reserved to himself the 
wills of noble and wealthy persons and of ecclesiastical 
dignitaries.^ He might, of course, hand over his privi- 
lege to the official or to commissioners. Bishop Staf- 
ford's register contains a list of the wills probated by 
him. Thirty-eight were wills of canons, rectors and 
vicars, three of knights, three of members of the bish- 
op's household, and eleven of other persons.^ A result 
of the control of wills by the Church was that all litiga- 
tion involved in carrying out the wishes of the testator, 

^ Bot. Pari, III. 26, 27. 

2 The official of the archdeacon of Totnes had proceeded to 
take in charge the will of Amicie de la Pomeray, but Grandis- 
son pro eo quod dicta mulier nohilis extiterat, et ipsius Testamenti 
Probacio et \approhacio ad suam Jurisdiccionem mere pertinet, ne 
crederetur dictum maqistrum Henricum Prohacionem Testamenti 
hujus modi jure Archidiaconali recepisse; omnia acta et gesta per 
eum in hac parte infirmavit, cassavit, et penitus revocavit ac recep- 
eionem Prohacionis dicti Testamenti sibi ipsi reseruavit per Deere- 
turn. Beg., 923. 

3 Stafford's Beg., 379-423. 



as expressed in his will, came into their courts. A cer- 
tain Lady H. de Plaknet, for example, willed that her 
body should be buried in Sherborne Minster, but her son 
buried her in a more humble place. He was accordingly 
cited to the consistory to answer for his act, and also 
for having compelled the bishop's messenger to chew 
and swallow the letter of monition sent to him by the 
bishop." Furthermore, the property of all persons 
dying intestate was disposed of for the good of their 
souls by the ecclesiastical courts. A sequestrator was 
regularly employed to travel through the diocese and 
search out such estates and sequester them into the 
hands of the bishop.^ Testamentary jurisdiction was 
the one field possessed by the spiritual power which 
brought practically everj^one into its courts, and conse- 
quently, was the one in which laymen felt most inter- 
ested. A large part of the petitions in parliament 
regarding the actions of ecclesiastical courts in the four- 
teenth century relate to this subject,^ Officials were re- 
peatedly accused of demanding exorbitant fees for pro- 
bate, demanding a hundred shillings, ten marks, and 
even twenty marks. At the same time archbishops and 
bishops in their statutes sought to check such conduct 
b}^ establishing a schedule of fees.^ 

Again, the religious and sacramental character of the 
marriage ceremony brought all cases of matrimony and 
divorce and of legitimacy into the church courts. They 

1 Drokensford's Beg., 88. The executors mentioned in the 
will were required to make and deposit with the court an inven- 
tory of the estate before they were granted letters of adminis- 
tration. Bronescombe's Beg., 283. 

2 Wykeham's Beg., II. 9; Grandisson's i?e^., 637, Wilkins, 
Concilia, II. 675. 

3 Bot Pari, II. 365b, 230b, 305b; III. 25b, 313a. 
^ Wilkins, Concilia, II. 675. 



were, in some instances at least, reserved to the bishop 
or his commissary, and the archdeacons were prohibited 
from entertaining them/ Many of the regulations of 
the consistory court concerned the trial of matrimonial 
suits, and special rules guarding against delay were 
drawn up for conducting them/ When during a trial 
in a temporal court a question of legitimacy arose, a 
writ was sent to the bishop to determine the truth/ This 
inquiry as to bastardy was a privilege much prized by 
the church courts and they tried to draw to themselves 
the right of similar inquiry in other cases/ 

The Church in its oversight of the morals of both 
clergy and laity pro salute animae had cognizance of a 
large number of offenses, some of which the laws of the 
state did not touch/ Trials for adultery and iucon- 
tinency, for assault upon clerks, violation of the right 
of sanctuary, or destruction of ecclesiastical property 
were the most frequent of these. 

When it is remembered that there were 29,161 clerks, 
exclusive of the friars, entered on the poll tax list in 
1381,^ men of all sorts and condition, it does not seem 
surprising that we often hear of outbreaks of violence 
among them or upon them. During 1329 there is a 
record of the excommunication of seventeen persons by 



^ Wilkins, Concilia, 11. 299. See ante p. 82. 

^Ibid., 11. 154, 496. 

3 Shrewsbury's Beg., 171, 339, 704. 

^Bot. Pari, II. 152 a. 

^ In 1303 the subjects of Bishop Bek of Durham, both cleri- 
cal and lay, rose up against his usurpations and obtained a 
charter confirming their liberties. One clause was "No free- 
man shall be impleaded in the court Christian except in mat- 
ters relating to testament and matrimony." Beg. Pal. Dun., 
III. 62. But this was doubtless exclusive of spiritual matters. 

« Cutts, Parish Priests, 390, 391. 



90 

Bishop Grandisson for assaulting a clerk or clerks/ 
Usually it was a quarrel between clerks or a layman and 
a clerk, but at times neither the dignity nor sanctity of 
a bishop protected him . The attack upon Bishop Shrews- 
bury at his visitation of Yeovil has already been men- 
tioned." While Grandisson was celebrating high mass 
in his church at Bishop's Lawton on the anniversary of 
his consecration, a body of men armed with arrows and 
other weapons rushed into the church and attacked him 
with a great noise. The worst of it was that they had 
been stirred up by the archdeacon of Totnes, who was 
in trouble with the bishop.^ The dislike felt for arch- 
deacons and their conduct found expression from time to 
time in outbreaks like the following: "A mob of about 
tAvo hundred men, — "Satellites of Satan," — with swords 
bare and bows drawn rushed in upon the official of the 
archdeacon of Totnes when he was holding court in the 
parish church of Yealhampton, seized the rolls and 
registers, drove the official, clerks, advocates and proc- 
tors out of the church and would have killed them had 
they not found shelter in a house nearby.'* miseri et 
infelices! Grandisson exclaimed, quis locus poterit esse 
tutus, quis securitate gaudehat, si ecclesia talihus casubus 
suMeciturl Whoever assaulted a clerk was also tried in 
the king's court for his breach of the king's peace .^ 
Thus the clergy were doubly protected; violence done to 
a layman was punished only in the lay court, but vio- 
lence done to a clerk was punished in both. 

1 Grandisson's Beg., 456, 469, 475, 480, 481, 482, 485, 526, 532. 

2 See ante p. 38. 

3 Grandisson's Reg., 979. 

* Grandisson's Beg., 1041. 

^ Beg. Sede Vacante, 189: Pollock and Maitland, English Law, 
I. 422.' 



91 

All churclies, cemeteries and other consecrated places- 
were sacred, and as the church desired to preserve a feel- 
ing of reverence for them among the people, any injury 
done them was promptly and severely punished. One of 
the most common offenses was violating the rigfit of 
sanctuary attached to them. Royal officials or others 
pursuing a fugitive could not endure to see themselves 
baffled by his reaching a church, but went in after him 
and dragged him out. The commons complained that 
the privilege was much abused by debtors who escaped 
their creditors in this way." Moreover, all ecclesiastical 
property, including the bishop's manors, was under 
special protection. Whoever broke a fence on one 
of them, destroyed or carried away the grain, or 
trespassed in any other way was guilty of violating the 
"ecclesiastical liberties and was punishable in two ways, 
by the secular court for his disregard of property rights, 
and also by the church court for his violation of ecclesi- 
astical liberties.^ Thus ecclesiastical property, as well as 
ecclesiastical persons, received a double protection. 
When we consider the extent of the bishop's manors 
and the frequency with which depredations upon them 
would be likely to be committed we are not surprised at 
the numerous excommunications for that oifense, and 
the frequent commissions to hear causes arising there- 
from. Bishop Drokensford's commissions always speci- 
fied that the persons appointed were to hear the case 
quoad salutem animae pertinet non ad forum seculare.^ 



^ Hot. Pari., II. 187b. In 1378 it was decided that sanctuary 
was to be allowed only where the fugitive was threatened with 
life or limb {Ibid., III. 37b). 

2 Drokensfords's Heg., 98, 105; Shrewsbury's Beg., 125; Gran- 
disson's Beq., 352. 

3 Drokensford's Beg., 117. 



92 

Other offenses of a moral character which the church 
punished were defamation and perjury. Cases of the 
former class were commonly brought against laymen, 
but in 1329, Bishop Grandisson took measures against 
the prior of St- Nicholas' Priory who had in Exeter and 
-elsewhere called the barons of the Cinque Ports, "law- 
breakers, plunderers, scoundrels, perjurers, and murder- 
ers."" The commons complained to the king (1326) 
that w^hen clerks had been brought before the justices 
and the ministers of the king and had been delivered, 
they turned round and sued their indictors in the Spirit- 
ual court for defamation. The king replied that inhibi- 
tion would be granted in all such cases. ^ A charge of 
perjury for breaking his oath was the regular means of 
proceeding against a church official who refused obedi- 
ence to his superior. The archdeacon took an oath to 
obey the bishop, the rural dean a similar oath to the 
archdeacon, and in the same way all sequestrators, ap- 
paritors, and other officials w-ere bound to obedience. 
Accordingly, when the archdeacon of Exeter refused to 
execute a mandate of the bishop, he was cited for per- 
jury.^ The rural dean of Redcliffe refused to hand over 
to the archdeacon of Bath the Peter's Pence he had coll- 
ected; he was summoned by the bishop to answer for 
perjury in that although he had taken an oath of fidel- 
ity to the archdeacon including the transmission of 
Peter's Pence, he had not lived up to it." 

Lastly, by benefit of clergy, the trial of clerks charged 
with felony was a privilege of the court Christian. 
Bishops sent deputies to all the jail deliveries to receive 

1 Grandisson's Beq., 519. 
''Bot. Pari., II. 9b, lib. 
^ See ante, p. 6. 
^ Drokensford's Beg., 286. 



93 

them. According to the statutes of Archbishop Boni- 
face (1261) they were required, to keep at least one prison, 
and there the clerks were sent to await trial. But be- 
fore the clerk was delivered up, a jury passed upon his 
guilt or innocence. "In order that it may be known in 
what character he is to be delivered, let the truth of the 
matter be inquired of the country. And the twelve jurors 
and the four neighboring townships say upon their oath 
that he is guilty [or, not guilty] and therefore as such, 
let him be delivered." ' This was more than an indict- 
ment of the present day. The court judged him guilty 
so far as it could pronounce sentence. Hence the ex- 
pression used in the bishop's registers in ordering the 
purgation of such clerks, namely that they had been 
brought before the justices of the king "and by a lay 
judgment condemned to death."" The clergy resented 
this procedure in the king's court and petitioned against 
it, but to no purpose.^ 

This was the extent of the competence of the ecclesi- 
astical courts of the fourteenth century. In addition, 
the church had claimed that clerks were not to be brought 
before a lay court on any personal action/ But the 
episcopal registers abundantly show that bishops were con- 
stantly called upon to cite clerks to the king's courts in the 
matter of debt, and that they submitted as a matter of 
course. None the less, they did attempt to hold pleas 
of this kind in their own courts, and the king sent out 
numerous inhibitions.^ Still they gained their end to a 

^ Assize Roll, Cambridgeshire eyre, 45 Henry III., quoted in 
Pollock and Maitland, English Law, I. 425. 

^ Beg. Sede Vacante, 93; Giffard's Beg., 79. 

3 Bot. Pari, II. 244b. 

"* Wilkins, Concilia, II. 148. In France (except Normandy) 
actions for debt were tried in spiritual courts, Fournier, 65. 

^ Stapeldon's Beg., 417, 418; Shrewsbury's Beg., 513. 



94 

considerable extent in another wa}^ They claimed to 
enforce all promises made upon oath, hence to entertain 
charges of breach of faith. The two parties to a debt 
appeared before the bishop or other judge, and in the 
presence of witnesses the debtor took oath to pay the 
debt/ He could then be cited for breach of faith in case 
he did not keep his promise. The commons complained 
to the king (1373), that the court Christian heard pleas 
of debt under the name otfidei laesio.^ Of the 555 cases 
recorded in the register of the Ripon Chapter Acts from 
1452 to 1501, one hundred and eighteen are cases of 
debt.^ 

In civil causes clerks were privileged from arrest by 
royal officials, and could only be reached through the 
bishop, in case they had no lay fee for the sheriff to dis- 
train. When such a clerk's presence was desired in a lay 
court, a writ was sent to the bishop distraining him by his 
barony to see that the clerk appeared on the specified 
day. Bishop Drokensford wrote to the Dean of Wells: 
"It has been the custom of the realm for beneficed clerks 
to be cited in matters of the 'Forum regium' through 
their Diocesans, and to answer to their Diocesans for 
non-appearance 'coram Rege' . Canon Plymstock has been 
cited for sums due to the executors of Henry Husee's 
will. His non-appearance has brought a mulct of £8, to 
be levied from the bishop's revenue; cite the Canon be- 
fore us in the cathedral to show cause, etcetera."'* Upon 
receiving such a writ the bishop ordinarily cited the 
clerk in question to appear before him and give surety to 
hold him blameless in regard to the king's writ.^ 

1 Drokensford's Beg., 132; Shrewsbury's Beg., 426, 441, 443. 
^ Bot. Pari, 11. 318 b. 

3 Bipon Chapter Acts, Surtees Soc. Publications, Vol. 64. 

4 Drokensford's Beg., 226; see Bracton, Be Legihus, VI. 492-3. 
^Sandale'si?e^., 232, 233. 



95 

There is abundant evidence that the attempt to widen 
their jurisdiction was not confined to ecclesiastical 
judges; lay judges and officials continually encroached 
upon the territory set apart for the spiritual courts . The 
clergy constantly complained that prohibitions to prevent 
cases being tried in their courts were too freely granted. 
In 1312, in response to a petition in parliament, the king 
ordered that royal judges were to fine and punish 
all who procured prohibitions against ordinaries pro- 
ceeding in matters purely spiritual,' but remonstrances 
on this point continued to be made throughout the 
centur3^^ In 1342, three of the king's justices outlawed 
three clerks of Devon. Bishop Grandisson cited them 
to appear before him to answer for disregarding the 
immunities of the clergj^ Two came to his manor 
house at Clyst and received absolution. The third re- 
fused to appear and was excommunicated. Thereupon 
the king sent out a prohibition and summoned the 
bishop to Westminster to answer for calling royal 
officials before the court Christian for acts done in the 
discharge of their dutv. It was the time of a provincial 
council; the matter was taken up there and settled by 
withdrawing the sentence of outlawry against the clerks , 
and the bishop absolving the third judge. ^ 

"- Bot. Pari, I. 282h. 

^ Bot. Pari, II. 358b; in. 26b. 

3 Grandisson's Beg., 961, 968. 



CHAPTER V. 

PROCEDURE IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL 
COURTS, 



The law administered in the ecclesiastical courts was 
the canon law of Rome, statutory law of legatine, archi- 
episcopal and episcopal constitutions, and the custom- 
ary law which had grown up from episcopal decisions 
extending through several centuries. The archbishop's 
and bishop's constitutions were in great part a restate- 
ment of the canon law and have been aptly called "a 
brief appendix to the common law of the universal 
church." In many cases papal statutes were not in- 
tended to supersede long standing customs, but when 
they were, the statement of the official of Worcester 
that "the longest customs cannot run against the insti- 
tutes of the sacred canons'' expresses the attitude of the 
ecclesiastical courts regarding them." 

As to the details of procedure in civil cases, registers 
and statutes give little information. In its general 
features it followed, however, the canon law procedure 
which was common to all Europe. This, in brief, was 
as follows. The person desiring to bring suit engaged 
an advocate to draw up a statement of his claims called 
the libeUus , which was presented to the olB.cial.'' The 
official then cited the defendant to come before him. He 

^ Beg. Sede Vacante, 270. On this question see Maitland, 
Canon Law in the Church of England. 
2 Wilkins, Concilia, II . 573; Fournier, Les officialites, 142. 

(96) 



97 

was entitled to three citations unless the matter required 
haste, when one peremptory citation was sufficient/ As 
in the lay courts, it was difficult to get people to appear 
and excommunications for failure to answer citations 
were numerous.^ When the person cited appeared, the 
lihellus was read to him and a day fixed on which both 
parties were to come into court and the defendant state 
whether he would admit the claim of his adversary or 
contest it. He might at that time enter an exception.^ 
This was a document, drawn up by an advocate in tech- 
nical form, asking for delay or that the action be 
dropped, and stating the reason or reasons — the adver- 
sary was under sentence of excommunication and could 
not bring suit, the judge was not competent to entertain 
the case, there had been an error in the Ubellus, and 
the like. If on the appointed day no exception was 
granted, the judge demanded of the defendant whether 
or not he admitted the charge of the plaintiff. If he did 
not, he replied in the following or similar terms: Litem 
contestando nego narrata prout narrantur et dico petita 
fieri non dehere. This step was called the litis contesta- 
tion and marked the formal opening of the case.'* Both 
parties then took the oath de calumnia and the hearing 
began. ^ The proctor of the plaintiff put to the defend- 

1 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 691; Fournier, Les officialites, 151. 

2;Grandisson's J^eg., 376, 389,401, 110, 428, 432. These excom- 
munications were issued during three months in 1328. 

^ Wilkins, Concilia, II. 496. The practice of introducing ex- 
eeptions to delay trials was so abused that Bishop Beaumont of 
Durham ordered that they should not be allowed in minor 
cases, matrimonial cases, or others where haste was necessary, 
unless the exception was such as to render the Ubellus null and 
void (Ibid). 

* c. I. X., II. V. 

^ Peckham's Beg., I. 170, 171; Fournier, Les officialites, 131. 



98 

ant a number of questions — positiones — whicli he had 
drawn up under the direction of the advocate, for the 
purpose of determining exactly what points were to be 
contested." To these the defendant's proctor replied. 
The advocate of the plaintiff then presented his proof, 
followed b}^ the advocate of the defendant; the testi- 
mony of witnesses was produced, and a day set for the 
pleading of the advocates on each side. As already 
stated, witnesses were not examined in open court. 
Those brought to the trial were examined by the regu- 
lar court examiners, but the testimony of others was 
taken b}' a notary cr commissioners at their homes. The 
statutes of the bishop of Chichester (1289) provided 
that two or more viri discretiores should be chosen in 
each rural deanery to act as examiners of witnesses and 
send the testimony to the official under their seal.^ The 
pleas of the advocates closed the case, and the judge 
pronounced his decision. This was the ordinary pro- 
cedure; summary procedure was more simple. In that 
case the Ubelliis was dispensed with, an oral statement 
of the charge being sufficient.^ 

The canon law recognized three methods of criminal 
procedure: by accusation, purgation, or inquisition."* 
The method of accusation was vevy formal and the ac- 
cuser had to prove his case or suffer punishment. It 
passed out of use in the thirteenth century.^ 

Purgation was the method of trial for those accused 

1 Grandisson's Beg., 1219; Fournier, Les officiaUtes, 178-182. 

Positiones were of recent origin. They began to be intro- 
duced in the thirteenth century and became increasingly com- 
mon. 

2 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 172. 

3 Fournier, Les officiaUtes, 231, 232. 
* c. 31, X. v. m. 

5 Fournier, Les officiality, 236, 237. 



99 

of felony. Some bishops, before they admitted to pur- 
gation a clerk who had been handed over to them by 
the king's justices, ordered an inquiry as to his charac- 
ter and general standing in the neighborhood of his home 
or where the crime had been committed, and if the tes- 
timony was unfavorable, refused to grant purgation." 
This does not seem to have been the general practice at 
Exeter, or at Bath' and Wells under Bishop Drokens- 
ford. There is only one instance recorded in which 
Bishop Grandisson ordered such an investigation "lest 
purgation be granted so easily that other clerks be made 
more bold and daring to commit abominable crimes."" 
On one occasion he appointed a commission to hear the 
purgation of fourteen clerks indicted for various crimes 
and handed over to him at the same time.^ 

The length of time that elapsed before clerks were 
allowed to purge themselves depended entirely upon the 
disposition of the bishop and there was, consequently, 
the greatest variety of practice. In eighteen cases where 
an inquiry was ordered by Bishop Wykeham relative to 
purgation, the date of imprisonment in his prison is 
given. We learn therefrom that clerks were confined 
eleven, thirteen, fourteen or seventeen years awaiting 
trial. ^ The length of time bore no relation to the seri- 

^ Sandale'si^eg., 414; Beg. Pal. Bun., 462. Wykeham twice 
refused to allow purgation because the results of the inquiry 
were unfavorable (Reg., II. 92, 305). 

The following is a commission of inquiry: diligencius in- 
quiratis veritatem an videlicet dictus Johannes super dicto crimine 
publice fuerit diffamatus et si diffamatus fuerit au fama hujus 
modi a paucis vel a 7nultis ah inimicis et emulis vel ex odii fomite 
super dicto crvmine fuerit indictatus. (Shrewsbury's JSeg., 471). 

2 Grandisson's Beg., 1165. 

^lUd.,Qn. 

* The number of years in case was as follows: 5, 7 (83); 13 
(92); 11 (95); 5 (113); 13.17, (128); 11 (264); 11 (279); 14 (293 Us); 
12 (305); 14,4 (443); 1, 4, 17 (444); 4 (453). The figures in paren- 
thesis refer to the pages of Wykeham's Begister, II. 

Lofa 



100 

ousness of the offense. One clerk had been in cnstody 
seventeen years on a charge of stealing three coverlets 
and two sheets; another thirteen years for the theft of 
twenty shillings." A certain Thomas Taylour had been 
in prison seventeen years on charge of having stolen 
two dishes and a coverlet, the whole valued at two shil- 
lings.^ In contrast to this, a list is given in Bishop 
Stapeldon's register of the prisoners in his prison in 
September, 1316, together with the dates of entry, and 
all had been in about a year and a half.^ Later, in 131:1, 
Bishop Grandisson in a general mandate promised that 
justice should be speedily done in all cases.'' As to the 
practice at Durham, Bishop Kellawe referred to a pris- 
oner whose purgation he was arranging for as iam din 
. mancipatur, and again to three clerks as apiid 
Dunohnuni a tempore nonmodico mancipati, but no definite 
dates are mentioned.^ 

In every case before purgation took place, the bishop 
sent a mandate to the rural dean to have notice of the 
fact read on several Sundays and fast days in the 
churches of the region where the crime had been com- 
mitted, citing all who opposed the purgation to appear 
before the bishop or his commissary on a specified day and 
state their reasons.* If no one answered the citation, the 
purgation was proceeded with on the appointed day' So 
far as the evidence goes, while it might take place in full 

1 Wykeham's Beg., II. 128. 
'Ibid., 441. 

^ Stapeldon's Beg., 508. There were six names in all. 
* Grandisson's Beg., 949. 
« Beg. Pal. Dun., I. 58, 462. 

6 Grandisson's Beg., 146: Sandale's Beg., 414; Beg. Pal. Dun., 
462; Wykeham's Beg., II. 5. 



101 

consistory, it far more frequently took place before 
commissioners appointed by the bisbop for the purpose/ 

The number of compurgators varied with the gravity 
of the offense and the customs of the different dioceses. 
The Exeter and Winchester statutes provided that there 
should be five for lesser crimes and not more than twelve 
for serious ones/ At Durham, in 1313, a certain clerk 
purged himself of the charge of robbery with seventeen 
compurgators/ Another in the diocese of Worcester 
had nineteen for the same offense/ It might make con- 
siderable difference in some cases whether the clerk was 
allowed to find his own compurgators, or whether they 
were appointed by the judge; both methods seem to 
have been followed/ Complaint was made to Archbishop 
Peckham that the commissaries of the bishop of Nor- 
wich made purgation too difficult. That if any one ap- 
peared among the compurgators who was poorly dressed, 
he was rejected, "as if a vestis nuptialis were necessary for 
purgation,'' the archbishop scornfully commented/ 

The process itself was simple. The accused swore he 
was innocent, and the others swore they believed he had 



^ Beg. Pal. Dun., 463; Grandisson's Beg., 519, 540. Drokens- 
ford's Beg., 188, 189. Most of the purgations which took place 
in consistory do not, probably, appear in the registrars. Six of 
Grandisson's commissions were addressed as follows: two to the 
dean and subdean of Exeter, one to the dean alone, two to the. 
commissary alone. 

2 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 148, 299. 

^ Beg. Pal. Bun., 463,464. 

^ Beg. Sede Vacante, 93. 

^ Wykeham appointed the compurgators in Beg., II. 279 
Drokensford's Beg., 189, gives an instance where they were 
found by the clerk. 

«Peckham's Beg., I, 177. 



102 

told the truth.' On the whole, the difficult part must have 
been to get a chance to try purgation rather than to suc- 
ceed in the trial when undertaken. If the purgation 
was unsuccessful, the felon was taken back to prison 
and kept there. ^ There are few cases noted in which he 
failed to clear himself. An interesting entry occurs in 
Drokensford's register, namely, a commission to receive 
the purgation of two clerks who had failed in a previous at- 
tempt.^ In 1352, Archbishop Islip circulated a mandate 
through the province stating that, when in the recent par- 
liament of London the clergy had complained to the king 
that secular judges were sentencing those brought before 
them for felony instead of handing them over to the 
ordinary, the king had replied that the prisons of the 
ordinaries were so comfortable, and the supply of meat 
and drink furnished in them was so generous that they 
inspired no terror in the evil-doer, and that, moreover, 
felons were granted such easy purgation that they re- 
turned to a life of crime. Wherefore the archbishop 
commanded the bishops to keep criminous clerks closely 
confined and restrict them to bread and water during 
three days of the week ; also to order an inquiry into the 
previous life and habits of every clerk before allowing 
purgation.^ 

For the trial of other offenses besides felony, either 
purgation or the inquisition was used, or both. The 
procedure in purgation was the same as in the case of 
felony, except that there was seldom any difficulty in 

^ . . . irrestito per eund.em Rodulfum Juramento quod a 
crimine furti supradicti sibi imposito fuU, et est omnino immunis, 
jurati singillatim dixerunt .se credere ipsum Eodulfum verum 
jurasse. (Grandisson's i?e^., 1166.) 

2 Stapeldon's Beg., 509. 

3 Drokensford's Beg., 189. 
^ Grandisson's Reg., 1118. 



]03 

getting a chance to try it, and for the lesser offenses 
fewer compurgators were customary. The ordinary 
procedure in the inquisition was as follows. When the 
person cited appeared before the judge, he was presented 
with the articuli, or charges, upon which he had been 
accused "by public rumor," or at the instance of 
some party. Upon all or any one of the charges which 
he denied he might ask to be allowed to purge himself. 
If he did not, another day was set upon which he ap- 
peared with his witnesses and, if he chose, an advocate. 
The judge then proceeded with the inquisition. The 
suspect and his witnesses were examined; also witnesses 
summoned by the judge himself, and according to the 
weight of testimony he decided the case.' 

The inquisition for heresy was governed by especial 
rules. But with that we are not concerned for in the 
period under discussion English bishops were not yet 
trying eases of heresy. A veritable heretic, Ralph de 
Tremur, appeared in the diocese of Exeter in Grandis- 
son's time. He was solemnly excommunicated by bishop 
and archbishop , but there is no record of his trial. ^ 

Punishment. — The punishment that followed convic- 
tion was, in most cases, penance. The royal power and 
church councils were united in discouraging commuting 
penances for money payments. The former because it 
made the courts Christian more dangerous rivals of the 
civil courts, the latter because it was too great a tempta- 
tion to the clergy who did not always give the money to 
the church or the poor as they ought, and moreover was 
contrary to the whole theory of punishment, namely, 

^ See full account of a trial by inquest in a case of adultery in 
Beg. Sede Vacante, 169-173. Also Fournier, Les officialites, 271- 
276. 
^ Grandisson's Beg., 1147, 1179. 



104 

that it should be public "as a warning to others."^ As 
might be expected, the practice varied much with differ- 
ent bishops. Grandisson not infrequently fined the 
guilty, while Kellawe's punishments, so far as the ap- 
pear, were all corporeal/ The whole tendency of the 
times was to increase the use of pecuniary penance. 
While thirteenth century constitutions had forbidden it 
entirely. Archbishop Stratford in 1342 decreed that the 
amount should be moderate "so that the receiver be not 
judged rapacious," and that it should not be allowed 
for notorious offenses committed a second time.^ The 
people preferred the corporeal penance and presented 
petitions in parliament from time to time, complaining 
that they were assigned pecuniary penances, and protest- 
ing against the "outrajouses summes" extorted by the 
ecclesiastical officials.^ 

A few examples of the punishment imposed for the 
graver offenses may be of interest. In the diocese of 
Bath and Wells, a clerk convicted of assault upon another 
clerk was commanded to stand every Friday for seven 
years in the parish church during service, with bare feet 
and head, holding a candle of at least one half-penny 
in value, which at the end of the office he was to offer at 
the altar, and every feast of the Annunciation for seven 
years he was to stand in the same way in the cathedral 
church of Bath. On all those occasions the cause of the 
punishment was to be explained by the celebrant of the 
divine service.^ The following penance was imposed 

1 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 9, 10. 

2 Grandisson's Beg., 403. 

3 Wilkins, Concilia, II. 699. 

^ Bot. Pari., 11. 230b; 245b. In 1377, they petitioned "that 
thereafter no ecclesiastical official should be permitted to re- 
ceive any money for penance." III. 25b. 

^ Shrewsbury's Beg., 264. 



105 

npon those who attacked Bishop Shrewsbury on his vis- 
itation of Yeovil. "Each of them shall stand on Sun- 
days on a lofty place of the said church bareheaded, 
. Whilst the divine offices are being celebrated, 
he shall hold a taper of one pound of wax burning, and 
shall offer it to him celebrating mass. The cause of the 
punishment shall be expounded to the clergy and the peo- 
ple in the vulgar tongue. He shall go for three days of 
the market of Yeovil, through the middle of the same and 
shall be fustigated by a priest . " ' The next example is less 
mediaeval in tone. For the same offense a certain John 
Lambron was ordered by Bishop Grandisson to pay the 
injured clerk a hundred shillings in four equal install- 
ments." 

The penance for violation of sanctuary was especially 
severe. At Durham, Nicholas le Porter and others 
di-agged forth certain men who had fled for sanctuary to 
a church of the Carmelites at Newcastle-on-Tyne, and 
handed them over to the civil authorities to be hanged. 
In expiation of his crime Nicholas was to go every Sun- 
day for the rest of the year to the doors of the church of 
St. Nicholas, bareheaded, barefooted, and wearing only a 
linen garment, and to cry out to the multitude of people 
the cause and the justice of the penance, at the same 
time receiving stripes from the chaplain. Then he was 
to go to the church of th^ Carmelites to have the fusti- 
gations repeated, and again make his declaration to the 
people. Furthermore, on Monday, Tuesday and Wednes- 
day in the week of Pentecost, he was to receive the same 
punishment at the doors of the church of St. Nicholas, 
and then go to the cathedi-al church at Durham, the 
•chaplain to follow and again chastise him.^ 

^ Shrewsbury's -Be^., 598. 
- Grandlsson's Beg., 612. 
3 Beg. Pal Dun., 313-315. 



106 

John de Alwent having failed in his purgation on a 
charge of adultery, the bishop volentes mitius secum 
agere, enjoined that for each of his offenses he was to be 
whipped on six days (Sundays and feast days) by the 
vicar of Gaynesf ord as he walked before the parishioners 
in procession around the church, and on six Mondays be 
beaten as he walked around the market place of Derlyn- 
ton, when the market was full of people.'" Fines were 
quite common for this offense. Bishop Drokensford 
fined a certain rector confessing adultery five marks and 
bound him in £10 not to repeat the crime. ^ A priest con- 
victed of adultery and suspended by the consistory court 
was pardoned by Bishop Grandisson on condition of un- 
dergoing a certain penance and paying a fine of half a 
mark.^ 

Penitents standing with lighted candles during the 
mass or walking in doleful procession were so common 
a sight to the mediaeval churchgoers that it is probable 
the salutary lesson did not much impress them. Fifty- 
seven of those who attacked Bishop Shrewsbury at 
Yeovil were ordered to begin their penance on the Sun- 
day after the feast of St. Valentine.^ What a scene the 
churchyard must have presented if only a part of that 
number appeared to receive their f ustigations ! It would 
seem probable that many sentences extending over a 
long time were not completed but were remitted by the 
bishop. 

Deprivation was not often resorted to. Most of the 
instances mentioned in the registers were due to con- 



' Beg. Pal. Dun., 417. 
2 Drokensford 's Beg., 17. 
^ Grandisson' s Beg., 403. 
^ Shrewsbury's Beg., 602. 



107 

tinned non-residence,' or refusal to take the higher 
orders/ Giffard (1301) deprived a rector for contracting 
matrimony/ and another rector in the diocese of Wor- 
cester was deprived in 1315 upon conviction of adultery/ 
Bishop Stapeldon in 1310, "for the ease of his con- 
science," ordered his official to go through the diocese 
and see if any persons had been too severely fined or 
punished by himself or any of his officials, and if so to 
remit their fines or other punishment/ 

Degradation from the ranks of the clergy was a pun- 
ishment used only in the most extreme cases. This 
power belonged only to the episcopal order and could not 
be exercised by one who was not a iJishop/ Bishop 
Giffard, with the advice of the archbishop of York, de- 
graded a subdeacon convicted of theft of the ornaments 
of a church,^ but except for heresy degradations were 
very few and far between. 

There was freciuently a chance for the guilty to lighten 
their penance by taking advantage of the numerous in- 
dulgences granted by bishops during the Middle Ages. 
An indulgence was a remission of penance during the 
time specified in the letter of indulgence on condition of 
aiding some worthy object with labor, money or prayers. 
It referred only to discipline imposed by the confessor or 
court and had nothing to do with the remission of the 
pains of purgatory. The Latern Council of 1215 limited 
the possible length of indulgences issued by bishops to- 



^ See ante, p. 21. 

2 GifCard's J?e(/., 192, 480; AYykeham's Beg,, T. 97. 

^ Ihid., Beg., 544. 

^ Beg. Sede Vacante, 169-172. 

^ Stapeldon's Beg., 298. 

^ Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, II. 40. 

7Giffard'si?ec/., 46. 



108 

a year at the dedication of churches and forty days at any 
other time,' Most of them wer6 for forty days and they 
were granted for a great variety of objects. Very fre- 
quently a bishop offered forty days to all who would 
contribute to the repair of some church, or to the fabric 
fund of his own or another cathedral. A list of seventy- 
six indulgences granted in aid of St. Paul's cathedral 
between 1201 and 1387 has been preserved. Every Eng- 
lish diocese granted at least one, while Norwich issued 
seven, and Ely, Salisbury, and Hereford five each.^ If 
one cathedral during so long a period received an indul- 
gence on an average of every two and a half years, it 
may readily be concluded that the number of aids 
granted in any diocese in response to the needs of all the 
cathedrals was quite considerable. 

Indulgences were offered to secure the repair of roads 
and bridges in the diocese.^ The same inducement was 
held out to those who would be present at church dedi- 
cations and anniversaries and, of course, make an offer- 
ing.^ Very common indeed were indulgences granted 
for prayers for kings and members of a royal family, 
for important ecclesiastics, and for the souls of the 
worthy dead.^ The unfortunate in the diocese, or even 
in other countries were not forgotten. Bishop Wykeham 
offered an indulgence to those Avho would relieve a T)Oor 
man and his wife, who were old and in debt,^ at another 

^ Lea, Hist, of Confession and Indulgences, III. 16.3. 

2 Simpson, Documents Illustrating tke History of St. PauVs 
Cathedral, Camden Soc. Pub. N. S., XXVI. 175-177. 

3 Wykeham's Beg., II. 495, 549; Stafford's Beg., 245, 293, 371; 
Beg. Pal. Dun., 506, 525; Drokensford's Beg., 260. 

"* Wykeham's Beg., II. 422; Bronescombe's Beg., 2-50. 
5 Beg. Pal Dun.', 42, 249, 615; Wykeham's Beg., 71; Shrews- 
bury's Beg., 9. 

« Wykeham's Beg., II. 526. 



109 

time to all who would aid two poor anchorites inhabit- 
ing the churchyard of St, Laurence Jewrj-/ Bishop 
Stafford issued one for a certain John Eh', of Essex, 
whose property had been totall}^ destroyed by fire;^ also 
for a merchant of York, who having gone suret}^ for an- 
other, was imprisoned for default.^ The same bishop 
granted forty daj's' indulgence to all the faithful who 
would contribute to the ransom of certain merchants of 
Bridgewater imprisoned in Normandy,'^ and Bishop 
Wykeham did the same to aid in freeing a Portuguese 
from the Saracens.^ Bishop Kellawe granted an indul- 
gence of forty days to all Avho would listen to the ser- 
mon of a certain Robert de Quigheley publicly preached,^ 
and similarly to all who would listen to the gospel in 
Durham cathedral/ Jn all, there is a record of sixty- 
six indulgences granted by him, and the number issued 
by Bishop Stafford is considerably greater. 

Appeals. — All decisions of the bishop and his con- 
sistory could be appealed to Rome or to the court of 
Canterbury, called also the court of Arches. He regu- 
larly pensioned certain advocates and proctors in both 
courts to look after his cases. ^ There were two kinds of 
appeal, the extra-judicial, or appeal a gravamine, and 



1 Wykeham's Beg., II. 122. 

2 Stafford's J?e.^., 92. 
^Ibid., 13. 
''lUd.,38. 

^ Wykeham's Beg., II. 476. 

« Beg. Pal. Bun., 195. 

' Ibid. , 250. 

^ Bishops Stapeldon and Grandisson ordinarily paid 40s. to 
their advocates and 20s. to their proctors in the court of Can- 
terbury. (Stapeldon's J?eg., 178; Grandisson' si?eg., 452); Bishops 
Drokensford and Shrewsbury 100s. to advocates and 4 marks 
to proctors. (Drokensford' s Beg., 155, 160; Shrewsbury's i?e^., 
186.) 



110 

the judicial. The former comprised a large share of the 
total number; any person anticipating oppression or an 
unjust action from his superior appealed to stay his ac- 
tion before any judicial measures had been taken. Thus 
whoever felt himself in danger from his bishop put him- 
self under the protection of the pope or archbishop who 
prohibited the bishop from taking any steps until the 
question had been investigated. The following inhibi- 
tion was addressed to Bishop Shrewsbury by the official 
of the court of Canterbury, "it has been intimated to 
us in behalf of Sir Walter de London, canon of Sarum, 
that although he by virtue of a certain provision . . . 
had obtained the deanery of Wells and had possessed 
the deanery for no short time, and it was publicly ap- 
pealed to the apostolic see on the behalf of the said 
Walter (he fearing grave prejudice) that no one should 
attempt anything to the prejudice of him or his deanery, 
nevertheless, Master Roger de Mortuo Mari and . 
canons of the said church . . . have decreed to 
proceed to the election of a future dean . . ; there- 
fore, we command you that you inhibit the said Master 
Roger and the others that they do not attempt prejudice 
pending the matter of appeal."' April, 1351, Bishop 
Shrewsbury appealed extra- judicially to the pope: "Al- 
though we, Ralph, are bishop of Bath and Wells and 
have possessed the bishopric for several years and as 3^et 
possess it, fearing that prejudice might in future be 
raised up about our rights . . . lest any should 
attempt prejudice by moving, citing, suspending, ex- 
communicating, etc., we appeal to the Apostolic See 
and for the protection of the court of Canterbury."^ 
Twelve extra-judicial appeals to Rome and three to Can- 

1 Shrewsbury's Beg., 245. 
-Ibid., 660. 



Ill 

terbury are recorded in Shrewsbury's register. Almost 
all were to prevent interference with rights of jurisdic- 
tion, or with the possession of a benefice or prebend. In 
seeking the protection of the court the appellant sent a 
statement of his case ; a statement was also presented hj 
the person appealed, and if the judge considered the ap- 
peal frivolous he cancelled the inhibition. If appeals 
were too readily granted by the court of Arches, serious 
injury was done to the bishop's jurisdiction. A clerk 
having got possession of a benefice, for example, could 
appeal to Rome and for the protection of Canterbury 
and in this way prevent the bishop from interfering with 
his enjoyment of the revenue of it while the case re- 
mained undecided, possibly a long time. Among 
the grievances presented to Archbishop Peckham by the 
suffragans of Canterbury in 1282 was a complaint that 
protection to appellants was too freely given.' 

The judicial appeal was the appeal from the decision 
of a judge. It might be made verbally in court imme- 
diately after the sentence had been pronounced. If this 
was not done, within a certain time thereafter applica- 
tion had to be made in writing to the judge for apostoli 
dimissorii addressedto the superior judge and transferring 
the case to him.^ However, if the former judge refused 
to grant these letters, the appellant might still present a 
libellus to the latter, who, \^ he considered the claim 
well founded, would entertain the case, nevertheless. 
It is hardly surprising to find that bishops considered the 
court of the archbishop was too lax in granting appeals. 
This was one of three grievances which Bishop Grandis- 
son sent by a proctor to be proposed for remedy in the 

1 Peckham's Beg., 329, 330. 

2 Stubbs, Egg. Courts Gomm. JReport. Appendix, 1. 29; Four- 
nier, Les offiGialites, 221, 223. 



112 

convocation of London, January, 1327. " Although the 
remedy of appeal was not instituted for the defense of 
iniquity but for the preservation of innocence, some in- 
corrigible subjects of this diocese . . . appealing to 
the court of Canterbury in times past have too easily and 
carelessly been granted rescripts from the president of 
the said court."' At the same time he wrote to the 
archbishop's official asking that appeal be refused in 
cases arising from the correction of subjects for the 
good of their soul, — in casibiis anime mere tangentihus.'' 

In general there seems to have been little appeal from 
sentences prescribing penance. Shrewsbury's register 
contains one, out of about forty appeals, judicial and 
extra-judicial, there recorded.^ And as there could be 
no appeal from purgation, it follows that it was mostly 
confined to civil cases. Almost all in Shrewbury's reg- 
ister concern the enjoyment of benefices and other church 
livings, or contested rights of jurisdiction. But the 
number of the latter was sufficient to keep the courts 
employed. Nothing is more characteristic of the medi- 
aeval church than the interminable and costh' suits be- 
tween ecclesiastics, from the highest to the lowest, over 
the extent of their respective powers. Apppeals from 
the consistory are not ordinarily referred to in the epis- 
copal registers, and matrimonial and testamentary cases 
ought to be added to the above as constituting important 
subjects of appeal. 

Episcopal jurisdiction was not only endangered by the 
encroachment of the archdeacons on the one hand, but 
also by the pretensions of the archbishops on the other. 

1 Grandisson's Beg., 448. 

2 Ibid., 451. He had in mind the appeal of Isabella de Sutton 
who had been sentenced by him for adultery. {Ibid., 207.) 

^ Shrewsbury's Iteg., 437. 



113 

In France, the archbishops had usurped so much power 
by the middle of the thirteenth century that the pope 
interfered and the bull Bomana was issued to protect the 
bishops/ In England the determined and united stand 
which the bishops took against Archbishop Peckham 
checked, for a time a least, such encroachment. Aside 
from general laxity in granting appeals, the archbishop 
increased his judicial authority in two ways, by passing 
over the bishop and entertaining appeals directly from 
lower courts, and by becoming a court of first instance 
and entertaining cases when no appeal had been made. 
The controversy between Archbishop Peckham and 
Thomas Cantilupe, bishop of Hereford, on these points 
has become well known. But he was not the only bishop 
who contested the archbishop's position; Bishop Gif- 
fard appealed several times to Rome against the "un- 
lawful usurpations" of the court of Canterbury." In 
1282, he appealed because "the archbishop in a certain 
matter of divorce between John de Shay and Alice, his 
wife, of Warwick, subjects of the said bishop, and 
which by appeal or other lawful manner had not come 
to the archbishop's cognizance, commissioned the prior 
of Berencestr^ in the diocese of Lincoln to determine 
the same." ^ 

According to the canon law, except in case of negli- 
gence on the part of a bishop, the archbishop could in- 
terfere with his subjects only during visitation or upon 
appeal, unless long established custom gave him greater 
authority ."^ Consequently Archbishop Peckham rested 



* c. 3, in 6, II. xv; Fournier, Les offidalites, 217, 218. 

2 Giffard's Beg., 151, 209, 222, 226, 273. 

3 IMd., 148. 

^ c. 3, in 6, II. xv; c i, in 6, i. xvi. ; Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, 
II. 15, 16. 



114 

his case chiefly upon custom. He wrote to the bishop 
of Loudon: "By right based upon long established 
custom, approved by your predecessors, we and our pre- 
decessors have exercised freely and in peace immediate 
jurisdiction upon you and your subjects in many cases." ' 
However, in 1282, his suffragans united in presenting 
their grievances and he consented to submit some of the 
points in dispute to five skilled lawyers. They decided 
against him. "Whereas the official of the court of Can- 
terbury in modern times has, in cases in which no ap- 
peal was being made, issued rescripts upon the complaint 
of the subjects of the suffragans more frequently than 
was done by the officials of the archbishop's predeces- 
sors, since it appears that some of the older officials but 
rarely and some never at any time issued rescripts upon 
such complaints, we decide that no rescripts shall be is- 
sued upon such complaints in time to come."'' They 
admitted that the archbishop could by virtue of his leg- 
atine power issue such rescripts; but decided that he 
could not delegate this legatine authority to the official 
of the court of Canterbury.^ The archbishop could 
hardly refuse to accept the decision of judges he had 
himself selected, and he shortly issued instructions to 
his official to reform his court in accordance with it. 
The evidence in Bishop Shrewsbury's register goes to 
show that these reforms were adhered to, through the 
first half of the fourteenth century, at least. Upon 
complaint to the court of Canterbury by the subjects of 
that bishop, the official did not begin proceedings, but 
ordered him to do justice in the matter, as in the follow- 
ing instance. "We have received the grave complaint 

^ Peckham's Beg., 679. 
2 Ihid , 337. 
^ Ibid., 338. 



115 

of Sir William atte Hall, perpetual chaplain ... of 
your diocese, containing that the party of the said Sir 
William going to you humbly supplicated that you 
should cause the prior and convent of Taunton to an- 
swer in a case of tithes and oblations . . . . , but 
you did not care to hear him. Therefore, we order you 
that within fifteen days you cause fullness of justice to 
be done to the party of the said Sir William. Other- 
wise cite the prior and convent to appear before us." ^ 

^ Shrewsbury's Reg., 718. For other examples see pp. 372, 
437, 442, 522, 663. 



CHAPTER VI. 

POWERS PERTAINING TO THE EPISCOPAL 
ORDER. 



The church made a distinction between those powers 
of a bishop which pertained to his order and those 
which pertained to his jurisdiction. The right to con- 
firm, ordain, and consecrate all bishops possessed in full 
and equal degree by virtue of their consecration to that 
order, and once conferred by the laying on of hands, 
those powers could not be taken away, even if a bishop 
turned heretic." As they belonged to him in his priestly 
rather than in his governmental capacity, they were not 
bounded by diocesan limits and might be exercised by 
bishops possessing only a nominal see, bishop in partihus 
for example. While all the bishop's jurisdictional duties 
could be performed by subordinates, those pertaining to 
his order could in most cases be delegated only to others 
in episcopal orders. Hence with bishops absent from 
their dioceses so long and so frequently, these tasks 
would have been much more neglected than they were, 
had it not been for the bishops without dioceses under 
their charge who came to England and were licensed by 
the English prelates to perform the work. Richard de 
Bury's ordinations were held by the bishops of Corbania 
and Bisaccia while he served the king as chancellor.'' 
Bishops of Leighlin, of Cloufert and of Waterford 

^ c 4. D. Lxviii. 

2 Beg. Pal. Bun., III. 106, 130. 

(116) 



117 

were licensed by the bishops of Exeter/ The bishop of 
Carlyle, driven out of his diocese by the Scotch wars, was 
frequently employed in the northern sees, and similarly 
the bishops of Wales in those of western England/ 
However, the foreigners were not popular. In Piers 
Plowman we find complaint against the 

"... prelates that he [the pope] maketh 

That bere bishops names 

Of Bethleem and Babiloigne 

That huppe about in Engelond 

To halwe mennes auteres 

And crepe amonges curatours 

And confessen ageyn the lawe." 

The people seem to have been been imposed upon occa- 
sionally by adventurers. Thus the bishop of Bath and 
Wells issued a mandate to the archdeacon of Wells 
(1362) to warn the clergy against imposters who were 
conferring minor orders, and a certain Hugh, calling 
himself archbishop of Damascus, dedicated many 
churches and collected the fees before Bishop Grandisson 
succeeded in putting a stop to his actions. ^ 

It is rather strange that almost nothing is said of con- 
firmation in the episcopal registers. Both QuiviPs stat- 
utes for Exeter and Woodlock's for Winchester 
declared that confirmation should take place within 
three years after birth, provided the parents could find 
a bishop; if they neglected this duty they were to fast 
on bread and water every Friday until the child was 



1 Bronescombe's Beg., 202; Stapaldon's Beg., 384; Grandis- 
son' s Beg., 888. A partial list of such bishops in England is 
given in Stubb's Beg., Sacrum Anglicanum, appendix. 

^Beg. Pal Dun., 111.290. 

3 Wilkins, Concilia, III. 49; Grandisson's Beg., 1027, 1030. 



118 

confirmed." The bishop held confirmation on his visita- 
tion round, and people living near his manors or the 
cathedral could bring their children to him there. Syn- 
odal constitutions ordered them not to wait until the 
bishop came to them, but to go to him whenever they 
heard he was near at hand.^ Still, even taking into con- 
sideration the bishops who assisted in the work, it must 
have been impossible for those in the more inaccessible 
parts of a diocese to observe the law, and many, proba- 
blj^, were left unconfirmed. Archbishop Peckham wrote 
to the bishop of Coventry that he had found in his re- 
cent visitation that children in everj^ part of his diocese 
lacked confirmation in infinite mnltitudine .^ He ordered 
him to commission some other bishop who understood 
the language to go through the diocese and perform that 
office. In 1329, the chapter of Rochester complained 
to the archbishop that their bishop, Hethe, did not travel 
about in his diocese, and boys were everywhere uncon- 
firmed."* Archbishop Reynolds sought by provincial con- 
stitutions (1322) to remedy the "prevalent neglect of 
confirmation,"^ but it is doubtful if they had much 
effect. 

The large number of clerks in every diocese is suffi- 
cient evidence that the bishop's task of conferring orders 
was not neglected. The number of persons who received 
ordination is a surprise to all who examine the espisco- 
pal registers. Bishop Stapledon ordained 1005 persons 
at his first ordination, and 1427 in all during the first 



1 Wilkins, Concilia, XL 132, 293. 
^Ihid., I. 657. 
3 Peckham's Beg. , II. 479. 
* Wilkins, Concilia, II. 556. 
^ Ibid., 11. 675. 



119 

year of his episcopate." Simon Montecute, Bishop of 
Worcester, ordained 433 persons in 1334, and 1047 in 
1336, a total in two years of 1480.^ It would not seem 
strange to find so many entering the lower orders only, 
whereby they could claim benefit of clergy and at the 
same time live in many respects the life of an ordinary 
layman. But the lists for the higher orders are also 
surprisingly long. Bishop Giffard held over fifty ordi- 
nations between 1282 and 1302, and the number of secu- 
lars admitted to the three higher orders reached 5349.^ 
This might be considered exceptional, owing to the man- 
date of the Council of Lyons (1274) that all beneficed 
clergy should obtain priest's orders or be deprived of 
their benefices, but an examination of Stapledon's ordi- 
nations, which occurred after that rule had been relaxed, 
gives similar results. Between 1308 and 1331 he or- 
dained 770 subdeacons, 822 deacons and 791 priests. "* Of 
these, 320 were regulars and 2063 seculars. Moreover, 
the register indicates those already beneficed, 296 in 
number, thus leaving over 1700 unprovided for at the 
time of their ordination. There were less than 700 ben- 
efices in the diocese of Exeter.^ Adding thereto the 
chapels, private oratories and chantries and making 
allowance for the repetition of names in the ordination 
lists, there were still many more in higher orders than 
could hope to obtain clerical preferment. 

Men could be admitted to the ranks of the clergy at 
any time or place by the bishop conferring the first 
tonsure. It was a regular part of the work done in 

^ Stapeldon's Beg., 446. 
2 Nash, History of Worcester, I. p. xxxiii. 
^Giffard's Beg., pp. civ-cvi. 

^ These figures have been worked out from the lists given at 
the end of the register. 
^ Cutts, Parish Priests, 385. 



120 

visitation, Bishop Stapeldon conferring it at eleven 
places between April and September on his round in 
1318/ The higher orders must be conferred by a bishop, 
but by papal privilege, a priest, as in case of abbots, 
could admit to the lower orders and confer the tonsure/ 
For the seven orders there were regular ordination days, 
the Saturdays of the four ember Aveeks, Saturday before 
Passion Sunday, and Holy Saturday/ In accordance 
with the Pontificale Romana, the tonsure was first con- 
ferred, then at the end of the first lesson the ostiarii or 
doorkeepers were ordained, after the second lesson the 
lectors, after the third the exorcists, after the fourth the 
acolytes, and after the fifth the subdeacons. The deacons 
were ordained at the end of the epistle, and the priests be- 
fore the last verse of the tract/ To confer the higher orders, 
those of subdeacon, deacon, and priest, the bishop was 
required to be in full pontificals. He was usually as- 
sisted in the ceremony by the archdeacon who presented 
to him the candidates of each class in turn. In some cases 
this right was claimed by others, as at Worcester where 
the precentor appealed to the pope against the bishop in 
that he had been denied his privilege of proclaiming 
those taking orders and calling on those ordained 
to retire.^ In the bishop's ordination lists those or- 
dained are classified under the orders of acolyte, sub- 
deacon, deacon and priest, with no mention of the re- 



^ StapeldoQ's Heg., 554, 555. 

^ The abbot of Malmesbury was granted this power by the 
pope. Wilkins, Concilia, III. 142. 

^ PontiUcale Romana. 

* Pontificale Romana. For variations in the Sarum and other 
English pontificals, see Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, II. 155- 
236. 

^GmsiYd'sReg.,U1. 



121 

maining orders. The bishop could confer the four 
minor orders on the same person in one day, although 
he could not confer on him a minor and a higher order, 
or two higher orders/ It is quite certain that the minor 
orders, that of acolyte excepted, had fallen into disuse. 
Their names were retained and the clergy required to 
pass through them, but this was probably done at one 
ordination. 

No person could receive orders without an examina- 
tion. For the first tonsure the candidate had to know 
how to read and have an elementary knowledge of the 
Christian belief.^ A more rigid examination was re- 
quired for the higher orders. The decretals provided 
that all candidates should present themselves on the 
Wednesday before ordination and be examined for three 
days as to their character, learning, and, above all, "if 
they firmly grasped the Catholic faith and could express 
it in simple language."^ In many cases the ordination 
lists are so long that we can be sure the test was not 
very thorough. The Piipilla ociili — a manual for the use 
of priests written in 1385 by John de Burgh, chancellor 
of the University of Cambridge, — stated that examina- 
tions ought not to be made too stiif , for perfection was 
not to be expected.^ The same work specified the age 
at which men could be admitted to the different orders. 
Priests ought to be over twenty-four, deacons over nine- 
teen, and for the subdeaconate and four lower orders 
they ought to be at least eighteen.^ From Bishop 

^ Wilkins, Concilia, II. 53; Lyndwood, Provinciale, lib. V. tit. 
II. 

2 Pontificale Homana. 

^ c. 5, D. XXIV. Igitur per tres dies continuos diligenter ex- 
aminentur, et sie sabbato qui probati sunt episcopo represententur. 

* Maskell, Monumenta BituaJia, II. p. cv. 

5 Ibid, II, p. cxvni. 



122 

Grandisson we learn that outside pressure was brought 
to bear upon a bishop to induce him to grant ordination. 
He stated that in the past many deficient in age, learn- 
ing, and character had struggled through the letters and 
entreaty of noblemen to be ordained in onerosa nutlti- 
tudine . . . .Predecessores nostras plus debito fati- 
gando ipsos inquietos reddendo, and commanded that in 
future no one was to obtain a letter asking for ordina- 
tion, but those qualified for orders were to present them- 
selves five or six days before the Saturday fixed for the 
ceremony and be examined/ Examination was generally 
conducted by the archdeacon but at times the bishop ap- 
pointed special commissioners for that purpose/ He 
could, and sometimes did, examine the candidates him- 
self/ 

Servile status, illegitimate birth, or bodily defects 
were bars to ordination . The bishop often removed the 
first in case of promising sons of his own tenants by 
manumitting them/ He could dispense with illegitimacy 
for the lower orders; for the higher a papal dispensa- 
tion was required/ However, the pope, as a mark of 
favor, sometimes granted an indult to a bishop to dis- 
pense for a certain number of illegitimates. After the 
Black Death this was especially called for by the lack of 
clergy. Grandisson, for example, received a license to 
dispense for forty persons in 1349 and again for twenty 
in 1352.^ The fact that the Church was trying to en- 
force the celibacy of the clergy when public opinion was 



1 Grandisson's Beg., 384. 

^ Lyndwood, Provinciale, 33: Stapeldon's Beg., 462, 503. 

3 Wykeham's Beg., 1. 294. 

^ Grandisson's Beg., 542, 1085. 

5 c. I. in 6, I. n. 

^ Grandisson's Beg., HI, 150. 



123 

not in sympathy with it, helps to account for the great 
number of illegitimates. 

After the Latern Council of 1179, the bishop who or- 
dained to the higher orders anyone who had not a suffi- 
cient guarantee that he could maintain himself, was re- 
quired to support him/ Hence we not infrequently find 
bishops granting pensions until the clerks ordained by 
them can find benefices.^ Bishop Giffard required a cer- 
tain chaplain to take oath before witnesses that he would 
never call him to account for promoting him to holy or- 
ders without a title. ^ The executors of a certain bishop 
were required by Archbishop Winchelesey to support a 
clerk who had been oi'dained by the bishop without a 
sufficient title, and afterwards became mutilated and in- 
capacitated for work.'* In 1307, the pope released the 
bishop of Worcester from the obligation of providing 
with benefices the large number of clerks ordained by 
his predecessor, Godfrey Giffard.^ Sometimes bishopa 
were deceived by clerks who obtained a grant of title 
from some noble or wealthy person on condition that 
they would not ask to have it carried out after ordina- 
tion.' 

The number seeking orders was frequently too great 
for the bishop to attend to, and he granted "letters di- 
missory" allowing the candidate to be ordained by any 
other bishop. The difficulty of obtaining orders at times 
is illustrated by an entry in Wykeham's register. 
Twenty men, footsore and weary, came one December 



^ Wilkins, Concilia, I. 506. 

2 Beg. Pal Dun., 25; Drokensford's Beg., 92. 

3 Giffard'si^e^., 99. 

* Cutts, Parish Priests, 144. 

5 Papal Letters, II. 26. 

« Shrewsbury's Beg., 131; Stapeldon's Beq. , 179. 



124 

day, 1379, all the way from Exeter to be ordained by 
the bishop at his manor of East Horseley in Surrey. 
But the bishop had not expected to hold an ordination 
and had obtained no license from the bishop of Win- 
chester, So "feeling sorry because of their great trouble 
and expense," he examined them and gave them letters 
dismissorj'/ The extent to which such letters were 
given varied greatly; Bishop Bronescombe granted only 
nine during his episcopate, while Bishop Stapeldon 
granted 261." The clerk who received ordination from 
another bishop without obtaining a letter dimissory was 
debarred from holding any living until dispensed by his 
own bishop.^ 

Dedication of churches and consecration of altars and 
cemeteries also pertained to the episcopal office. The 
presence of the bishop at the place dedicated or conse- 
crated was necessary', and as in case of confirmation the 
ceremony was doubtless often left undone for a consid- 
erable time. Cardinal Otho found many churches in 
England undedicated, and in his constitutions ordered 
that it should in every case take place within one year 
after the church had been built. "^ Archbishop Peckham 
wrote to the official of the bishop of Chichester that in 
visiting the diocese he had found many churches not yet 
consecrated.^ We find record in the registers of fines 
for holding services in undedicated churches. Drokens- 
ford's contains a model letter for use throughout the 
diocese, in which rectors are to be fined ten shillings for 

1 Wykeham's Beg., I. 294. 

2 Bronescombe 's i?e|7., 286-297; Stapeldon's i^es'., 536-543. 

^ Bronescombe 's -Rs.g., 222; Grandisson's Beg., 355, 507, 657. 
^ Wilkins, Concilia, I. 650. 
^Peckham's Beg., II. 951. 



125 

officiating in undedicated places." The bishop performed 
the ceremony when on his visitation tours, Brones- 
combe dedicating twenty-one churches in about thirty 
daj^s on his first visitation of Cornwall/ During July 
and August, 1336, Grandisson consecrated fourteen 
altars.^ The Pontificale describes the ceremony of con- 
secration and the costume of the bishop. A regular 
tariff was customary for the service; five marks for the 
dedication of a church, and forty shillings for the dedi- 
cation of an altar, was the usual fee. Grandisson (1352) 
cited the canons of the collegiate church of Bosham to 
appear before him in that he had dedicated an altar for 
them and they had refused to pay the forty shillings 
within forty days."^ 

If in any way blood was spilled in a church or cemetery, 
it became polluted and had to be reconciled by the bishop 
who sprinkled consecrated water on the desecrated places. 
From the constant use of churches and cemeteries for 
divers purposes, and the fact that fugitives fled there for 
sanctuary, it resulted that this ceremony had often to 
be performed. No service could be held under heavy 
penalties until the reconciliation had taken place. 
When Stapeldon went to reconcile the priory of Bodwin, 
defiled two years previously by a quarrel between a 
monk and a secular clerk in which blood had been 
spilled, he found that the monks had been celebrating 
service daring all that time, and fined them twenty 
pounds.^ The parishioners of a certain church in Wor- 
cester diocese, wishing to escape as long as possible the 



2 Bronescombe's Beg., 65-67. 

3 Grandisson's Beg.', 812-822. 
-"Ibid., 1126. 

^ Stapeldon" s Beg., 51. 



126 

■cost of reconciliation, did not ask for it, but closed up 
their cliurch and attended neighboring churches and 
chapels. But the rectors and chaplains of the latter 
were promptly ordered to send them home whenever 
they came/ The expense of reconciliation was doubtless 
a sufficient consideration to prevent much violence and 
bloodshed that would otherwise have occurred. Still, 
the ceremony of reconciliation was performed often 
enough for the fees to prove a considerable part of the 
bishop's income from spiritualities. The pope having 
granted (13il) an indult to the prior and subprior of 
Worcester to reconcile churches and cemeteries in the 
•diocese, the succeeding pope amended it by restricting 
the privilege to times when the bishop was out of his 
diocese, stating that the episcopal income was largely 
dependent upon reconciliation.^ At Exeter and Durham 
the charge was five marks. ^ The bishop often had dif- 
ficulty in collecting it, and occasionally was compelled 
to lay the church under an interdict. '^ It was very 
troublesome and often impossible for a bishop to go off 
to any part of his diocese whenever a church or ceme- 
tery 'might chance to need reconciliation. Consequently, 
we find man}^ papal dispensations allowing reconcilia- 
tion by deputy for a term of years. ^ Priests, abbots, or 
canons then performed the ceremony with water previ- 
^ously blessed by the bishop. However, in serious cases 
the bishop was expected to perform the office, even if 
he possessed a dispensation. Commissions of inquiry 
were accordingly issued to investigate whether the pol- 

^ Beg. Sede Vacante, 348. 
2 Paiml Letters, III. 571. 

^ Beg. Pal. Dun. 120; Grandisson's Beg., 836. 
4 Beg. Pal. Bun., 160; Grandisson's Beg., 688. 
^ Papal Letters, I. 612, et passirti. Twelve such dispensations 
-are recorded for the first half of the fourteenth century. 



127 

lution was "serious, slight, or moderate," "whether it 
was done with knives, fists, arms, or stones," etcetera.' 

The duties of a bishop pertaining to his order were so 
fundamental in the Catholic church that there was little 
variety in the manner of performing them. While the 
exercise of almost all his jurisdictional rights gave rise 
to controversies with ecclesiastics above and below him, 
as well as with lay authorities, and the final settlement 
was usually a compromise, these powers were exercised 
from one century to the next without change or devel- 
opment, and with almost no variation in the different 
dioceses. 

This completes the survey of the bishop's diocesan 
work. One point comes out clearly, a relatively large 
part was of a secular character and is to-day performed 
by the civil authorities. The statement made in the in- 
troduction may be repeated at the close, namely, that 
the bishop was a governor of a petty state. A depend- 
ent state, of course, but rather because he was in the 
last resort subordinate to the pope, and at the mercy of 
the royal power, than because he did not under ordinary 
circnmstances exercise all the powers of a ruler. 

Another conspicuous fact is the completeness with 
which most bishops of the period under discussion kept 
track of all diocesan matters. At times practically all 
their tasks were performed by assistants, and some of 
them were always delegated, but they never allowed any 
of them to pass out of their control. The nearest ap- 
proach to this was the judicial work of the official, and 
an attempt has been made to show that even in his case 
the bishop frequently and informally interfered and 
transferred causes to other judges or to his own hearing. 
Langland, Wycliffe and the poets and preachers of the 

^ Grandisson's Beg., 769. 



128 

later fourteentli century who complained tliat bishops 
did not do their duty, referred more particularly to those 
of their own time, although they would not have hesita- 
ted to include the whole century. But these reformers, 
in their intense religious enthusiasm, had a new idea of 
duty which would limit bishops to their spiritual offices. 
It was not so much that bishops (with some exceptions) 
neglected their diocesan work, as that a different con- 
ception of the episcopal office had arisen, a conception 
which condemned much of that work as worldly, and 
laid the whole emphasis upon the strictly religious duties. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY, 

SOURCELS. 



EPISCOPAL REGISTERS. 

Bath mid Wells: 

Drokensford's Register (1309-1329). Ed. E. Hobhouse. 

Somerset Record Society Publications. 1887. 
Registrum Radulphi de Salopia (1329-1363)*. Ed. T. J. 
Holmes. Somerset Record Society Publications. 1895- 
1896. 
Coventry and Litchiield: 

NoRBURY's Register (1322-1358). Abstract of contents 
by E. Hobhouse. Staffordshire Historical Collections 
1880. 
Durham: 

Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense (1311-1316, 1338- 
1343). Ed. T. D. Hardy. Rolls Series. 
Exeter: Ed. J. Hingeston-Randolph. 

Bronescombe, QuiviL andBytton's Registers (1257- 

1307). Exeter, 1889. 
Stapeldon's Register (1307-1326). Exeter, 1892. 
Grandisson's Register (1327-1369). Exeter, 1894-1900. 
Stafford's Register (1395-1419). Exeter, 1890. 
Winchester: 

Sandale andAsserio's Registers (1316-1323) . Ed. F. 
J. Baigent. Hampshire Record Society Publications. 
1897. 
Wykeham's Register (1366-1404). Ed. T. F. Kirby, 
Hampshire Record Society Publications. 1896-1899. 
Worcester: 

GiFFARD's Register (1268-1302). Ed. J. Willis Bund, 
Worcestershire Historical Society Publications. 1898- 
1902. 
Registrum Sede Vacante (1301-1435) . Ed. J. Willis 
Bund. Worcestershire Historical Society Publications. 
1893-1897. 

(129) 



130 

CHRONICLES AND LETTERS. 

Anglia Sacra. Ed. Henry Wharton, London. 1691. 
Annales Monastici. Ed. H. R. Luard. Rolls Series. 
Chronicon Abbatiae Eveshamensis. Ed. TV. Macray. 

Rolls Series. 
Chronicon Angliae (1328-1388). Ed. E. M. Thompson. 

Rolls Series. 
Chronicon A. Murimuth et R. de Avesbury. Ed. E. 

M. Thompson. Rolls Series. 
Chronicles of Edward I. and Edward II. Ed. William 

Stubbs. Rolls Series. 
Chronica Majora Matthaei Parisiensis. Ed. H. R. 

Luard. Rolls Series. 
Chronicon Henrici Knighton. Ed. J. R. Lumby. Rolls 

Series. 
Thomae Walsingham Historia Anglicana. Ed. H. T. 

Riley. Rolls Series. 
HiSTORiAE Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres. Ed. J. Raine, 

Surtees Society Publications. 1839. 
Historia et Cartularium Monasterh Gloucestriae. 

Ed. W. Hart. Rolls Series. 
Historians of the Church of York and its Arch- 
bishops. Ed. J. Raine. Rolls Series. 
William De Dene Historia Roffensis in Wharton's 

Anglia Sacra. 
POLYCHRONICON Ranulphi Higden. Ed. J. R. Lumby. 

Rolls Series. 
Ypodigma Neustrae a Thoma Walsingham. Ed. J. T. 

Riley. Rolls Series. 
Calendar of Papal Letters. Ed. W. Bliss. English 

State Papers. 
Historical Papers and Letters from the Northern 

Registers. Ed. J. Raine. Rolls Series. 
RoBERTi Grosseteste Epistolae. Ed. H. R. Luard. 

Rolls Series. 
Literae Cantuariensis. Ed. J. Sheppard. Rolls Series. 
Reg. Epistolarum J. Peckham Archiepiscopi Can- 

TUARENSIS. Ed. C. Martin. Rolls Series. 



131 

LEGAL SOURCES. ECCLESIASTICAL AND SECULAR. 

Statutes of the Realm. Ed. Record Commission. Lon- 
don. 1810-1828. 

Rymer's Foedera. Hague ed. 1715. 

Rotuli Parliamentorum. Official ed. 1783. 

Bracton, De Legibijs Angliae. Ed. T. Twiss. Rolls 
Series. 

Corpus Juris Canonici. Ed. Friedberg. 1881. 

Sacrosancta Concilia. Ed. Labbe. Paris. 1671. 

Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae. Ed. D. 
Wilkins. London. 1737. 

Lyndwood, Pro VINCI ale. Oxford. 1679. 

MONUIVIEMTA RiTUALIA ECCLESIAE ANGLICANAE. Ed. W. 

Maskell. Oxford. 1882. 
Lincoln Cathedral Statutes. Ed. Bradshaw and 

Wordsworth. Cambridge. 1892-1897. 
Wells Cathedral Documents. Ed. H. Reynolds. 

Leeds. 1881. 
Depositions and Ecclesiastical Proceedings from 
the Courts of Durham. Ed. J. Raine. Surtees So 

ciety Publications. 1815. 
RrPON Chapter Acts. Ed. J. Fowler. Surtees Society 

Publications. 1874. 

FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS. 

Taxatio Ecclesiastica Angliae et Walliae, aucto. 

riate P. Nicholas IV. Ed. Record Commission. 1802. 
Valor Ecclesiasticus, temp. Henry VIII. Ed. Record 

Commission. 1810-1834. 
Account of the Executors of Richard, Bishop of 

London, and Thomas, Bishop of Exeter. Ed. Hale 

and Ellacombe. Camden Society Publications. 1874. 
Household Roll of Bishop Swinfield. Ed. J. Webb. 

Camden Society Publications. 1853-1855. 

SECONDARY WRITERS. 

Benson, Edward White. The Cathedral. London. 1878. 
Beresford, W. Lichfield. S. P. C. K. London. 
Campbell, John. Lives of the Chancellors. London. 

1868. 
Capes, W. Wolf. History of the English Church in the 

Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. London. 1900. 



132 

CuTTS, Edward P. Parish Priests and their People in the 
Middle Ages in England. London. 1898. 

Dansey, William. Horae Decanicae Rurales. London. 
1844. 

FOURNIER. Les ofacialites au moyen age. Paris. 1880. 

Grea, M. Adrien. Essai historique sur les archidiacres. 
Bibliotheque de I'Ecole des Chartes. 1851. 

HINSCHIUS, Paul. Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und 
Protestanten in Deutschland. Berlin. 1869-1895. 

Hook, W. T. Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury. 
London. 1865-1867. 

Jenson, O. 'Denarius Sancti Petri,' in England. Royal 
Historical Society Transactions. 1901. 

Jones, H. Salisbury. London. 1880. 

Lapsley, Gaillard. The County Polatine of Durham. 
New York. 1900. 

Lea, H. C. History of Auricular Confession and Indul- 
gences in the Latin Church. Philadelphia. 1896. 

Low, J. Durham. London. 1881. 

Maitland, Frederic W. Roman Canon Law in the 
Church of England. London. 1898. 

Makower, Felix. Constitutional History and Constitution 
of the Church of England. London. 1895. 

Nash, Thomas. History of Worcestershire. London. 
1781. 

Oliver, George. Lives of the Bishops of Exeter. Exeter. 
1861. 

Ormsby, G. York. S. P. C. K. London. 

Pollock and Maitland. History of English Law be- 
fore the Time of Edward I. Cambridge. 1895. 

Smith, G. Worcester. London. 1883. 

Stubbs, William. Constitutional History of England. 
Oxford. 1897. 

Stubbs, William. Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum. Ox- 
ford, 1897. 

Stubbs, William. An account of the courts which have 
exercised ecclesiastical jurisdiction in England. Ecclesi- 
astical Courts Commission Report. London. 1883. 

Trevelyan, George. England in the Age of Wycliffe. 
London. 1900. 



Y-A/ 



THE OFFICE OF AN ENGLISH BISHOP 

IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 
FOURTEENTH CENTURY 



A Thesis presented to the Faculty of Philosophy of the 
University of Pennsylvania • 



BY 



EDITH KATHERINE LYLE 



in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the 
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

1903 



LBJa'lO 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORtO LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



